NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at) live.com, and I'll post it for you.

Notice to readers of my Kindle book:I recently noticed that, on certain devices (though not all), the Table of Contents begins with Chapter One and omits the Introduction and Preface. Since the Introduction is especially important, I urge everyone to make sure to begin reading at the very beginning of the book, not the first chapter in the Table of Contents. Thank you.

Sunday, December 2, 2012

New Improved Intruder Theory

We've seen all sorts of intruder theories, but none I've ever seen can explain 1. why a ransom note was left yet no one was kidnapped and 2. why the body was hidden in that tiny basement room. However, there is in fact a scenario that could account for these two things, though to my knowledge the only person who ever suggested it was someone on one of the anti-Ramsey forums arguing that this must have been what Patsy and John had in mind when they staged their kidnapping for the police. I'll get to that aspect in a moment, but for now, let's consider it purely as an intruder theory:

An intruder enters the house. Possibly a burglar. Possibly a pedophile. Possibly simply on a lark. Since there was no sign of forced entry, we can assume he has a key. He locates JonBenet, or simply encounters her, sexually assaults her, and kills her. Then he gets an idea. If he makes this look like a kidnapping, he could make some money out of it. He finds Patsy's notepad and writes a ransom note. Then he hides the body of his victim in the little windowless room, where no one is likely to look for it. He leaves the note where he assumes someone will find it the next morning. And then he is off. His plan is to call the Ramsey's home the following morning, as stated in the note, and instruct John as to where he should drop off the money.

This looks like a pretty good scenario, as it apparently accounts for some of the strangest aspects of the case: the fact that the note was written while the kidnapper was in the house, rather than beforehand; the fact that the victim was never actually taken from the home; the reason why the body was hidden.

But it also has some serious problems. First, it has many of the same problems as every other intruder theory: why no clear sign of the intruder; why is all the so-called intruder evidence inconclusive rather than the obvious evidence one would expect to see all over the place; why no footprints; why no fingerprints; why was nothing taken from the home; and if the intruder had a key, then what about the scene at the basement window, especially the suitcase propped against the wall, and also the packing peanuts from the window well, found on the floor beneath the window. Since there was no sign of forced entry at that window, or anywhere else, then how do we explain that suitcase and those packing peanuts?

There is also the question of why anyone would want to leave evidence that could be traced back to him, in the form of a hand written note? Or why that person would want to take so much time to write it, knowing someone might wake up and he could be discovered. If his plan is to collect a ransom, a note isn't necessary. He could simply have called the Ramseys first thing in the morning, with instructions on the ransom amount and where to deliver it.

The oddest part of this scenario concerns the "intruder's" plan as outlined in the note. For such a plan to work, this person would need to collect that money as soon as possible. Why give your victims time to think about what to do, time to have second thoughts and contact the authorities after all; time, also, for the body to decay and begin to smell -- sooner or later it is going to be discovered. Yet the kidnapper tells John to expect a call "tomorrow" rather than later that day. There's been some confusion over the meaning of that "tomorrow," but for the writer of the note there was no confusion at all. Clearly "tomorrow" meant tomorrow, i.e., between 8 and 10 AM the following day, i.e., the 27th, NOT the 26th, the day the note was found.

There is no way John could have collected the ransom prior to 8 AM on the 26th. Nor would there have been time for him to be "rested" as suggested in the note. The note writer clearly intended for the call to be expected the following morning. And if the "kidnapper" knows there is a body rotting away in the basement, waiting to be discovered, then why on Earth would he have wanted John to wait a full day before instructing him as to where to deliver the ransom? Under such circumstances, very clearly, the intruder would have called first thing on the morning of the 26th with his instructions, and would have wanted the money delivered as soon as possible.

So. Sorry if the heading of this post gave you Ramsey defenders out there any false hopes. My "new improved theory" is presented in the interests of completeness, to make sure I've left no stone unturned in the investigation of this case. As I see it, this is far more convincing than any other intruder theory I've ever encountered. But it too has some serious flaws. There is still no way to make sense of any intruder doing all that was done that night.

As far as something of this sort having been on the Ramseys' mind in staging their phoney "kidnapping," as was alleged by the author of the "new, improved" theory, this too won't hold water. If this was in fact what they had in mind when the police were called, then they did a good job of keeping it to themselves. To my knowledge, no such scenario was ever suggested by John, Patsy, or anyone else on their legal and investigative team. Certainly nothing of the sort was suggested by Lou Smit, who admitted he was unable to account for the intruder's motives in leaving a note yet not taking his victim. If this was what they were staging, surely they would have found a way to put that idea into the heads of the investigators. Since there is no sign they did any such thing, I see no reason to accept the author's original premise. It's an interesting theory. No more than that.

136 comments:

"Why no clear sign of the intruder; why is all the so-called intruder evidence inconclusive rather than the obvious evidence one would expect to see all over the place; why no footprints; why no fingerprints?"

The Ramseys were not big on home security. They did not set their home security system. They gave house keys to friends, neighbors, servants, contractors very liberally and naively.

What sort of evidence of forced entry would you expect to find when forced entry was not necessary?

Why would you expect to find a lot of footprints at a crime scene which has been walked all over from top to bottom? That being said, there were two unidentifiable footprints discovered in the basement.

If the intruders were burglars, which they most probably were, they might have thought to wear gloves so not leave fingerprints.

"Why was nothing taken from the home?"

This was a botched burglary in which a six year-old girl was murdered. Only the most desperate fool of a heroin addict is going to take ANYTHING from the home for fear of it being traced back to him. After murdering JonBenet, the only goal for the burglars would have been to get out of there without getting caught.

"If the intruder had a key, then what about the scene at the basement window, especially the suitcase propped against the wall, and also the packing peanuts from the window well, found on the floor beneath the window. Since there was no sign of forced entry at that window, or anywhere else, then how do we explain that suitcase and those packing peanuts?"

It may very well be the case that the burglars had entered the house while the Ramseys were visiting the Whites, and they hid in the basement when the Ramseys suddenly came home. They may have attempted to make their exit via the basement egress but wrongly believed the grate to have been locked shut if they were, for some reason, unable to open it.

"There is also the question of why anyone would want to leave evidence that could be traced back to him, in the form of a hand written note?"

This should tell you something about the identity of our burglars. Obviously, these were not hardcore sociopaths who could kill a child without giving it a second thought.

Upon being discovered in the house by JonBonet, who must have known at least one of the burglars by name, they were unsure of what they should do next. Obviously, they pondered kidnapping but ultimately decided upon murder.

"Or why that person would want to take so much time to write it, knowing someone might wake up and he could be discovered. If his plan is to collect a ransom, a note isn't necessary. He could simply have called the Ramseys first thing in the morning, with instructions on the ransom amount and where to deliver it."

It would appear that there were two burglars: The dominant one favored murdering JonBenet on the spot since she could identify them and thus would have to be murdered eventually anyway, while the less dominant one favored kidnapping because she did not have the stomach to murder a child, especially one whom she knew and liked. The long-winded nature of the ransom note is not only an expression of the subject's total inexperience with the very idea of kidnapping, but also an expression of the subject's need to delay the murder of JonBenet, which her accomplice was obviously insisting upon.

In all likelihood, the less dominant burglar, the one who so favored kidnapping, was probably hoping that someone would wake up and discover them. She may have rather suffered a burglary conviction than a murder conviction, and was just stalling for time by writing the "War and Peace" of ransom notes.

Sig, it's easy to weave all sorts of fantasies when you have NO particular suspect, thus leaving us with no way of confirming or even investigating any of these possibilities. Kolar does something similar in the beginning of his book, suggesting a "foreign faction" of midget acrobats entering and leaving through the window without leaving a trace. He's got his tongue in his cheek, of course, but unfortunately you are dead serious.

Sure, it's possible to contrive intruders who could have acted in all sorts of ways that might seem to account for everything, but without any actual suspect, it's all just an empty exercise. It could be used as an argument for reasonable doubt, I suppose, but it's so unlikely I can't imagine any lawyer actually trying that in court. He would in fact be demonstrating the absurdity of the intruder theory rather than arguing for it.

When we consider John Ramsey, the situation is completely different. We know for a FACT that he was in the house the night of the crime. We know for a FACT that JonBenet was sexually assaulted, so if there was no intruder, then John is the most likely suspect by far. And given all the many problems with any intruder theory, as discussed very thoroughly at many points on this blog, and of course, much of the literature on this case generally, then we have no choice but to focus on John. Your suspects, on the other hand, have no tangible existence at all. They are figments of your imagination.

Are you seriously suggesting that it is more rational to focus upon JR as the primary suspect simply because he was in the house at the time of the murder?

What are you, Steve Thomas' twin? Have you learned nothing in the last 12 years?

Sorry, Doc, but that strategy is a PROVEN failure.

I don't know who killed JonBenet but I will bet my ass that it was neither JR, PR, BR, nor a foreign faction of midget acrobats. If Kolar and the rest of Keystone Kops knew what they were doing, the perpetrators of this heinous crime would be in prison this very day.

"Are you seriously suggesting that it is more rational to focus upon JR as the primary suspect simply because he was in the house at the time of the murder?"

Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. For one thing, he is an actual flesh and blood suspect, which your intruders are not. For another, the circumstances of the case strongly suggest an inside job, i.e. an attempt at staging a kidnapping that went wrong. This should have been apparent as soon as the body was discovered in the house. And in fact John was initially taken very seriously as the sole suspect.

He had the means (access to the Maglite, knowledge of sailor's knots); he had the opportunity, as he lived in the house; and of all three living in the house, he was most likely to have had a motive for sexual assault, as he was the only mature male. When we add to that the fact that in the great majority of cases, children are murdered by a family member, there is certainly reason to suspect John.

There is no reason to suspect your "suspects" since they don't actually exist outside of your imagination.

"Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. For one thing, he is an actual flesh and blood suspect, which your intruders are not."

That is the most idiotic thing I have heard anyone say in reference to this case, and I say that with all due respect.

"The circumstances of the case strongly suggest an inside job."

That all depends upon what you mean by an "inside job." It appears that at least one of the perps knew the family enough to be privy to certain family information, such as the approximate amount of JR's bonus, but not enough to know that it was Patsy who is a Southerner not John.

Although I am not nearly certain of it, "inside job" may also mean that the perp who actually murdered JonBenet was somehow connected to law enforcement, and may even have been one of the detectives involved with the case. I have discussed my reasons for this suspicion in other posts on this blog.

The evidence, beginning with the ransom note and the body in the basement, strongly suggests that this was not an inside job if by "inside job" you mean that the offense was committed by a member of the Ramsey household.

While there is always reason to suspect the parents when a child is murdered, the parents in this case, as a pair and as individuals, have already been investigated ad nauseum and been cleared. The best evidence for their non-involvement is that neither of them wrote the ransom note.

"He had the means (access to the Maglite, knowledge of sailor's knots)."

JonBenet was most certainly struck with a crowbar or a tire iron (both burglary tools, btw) The damage to the cranium is far too extensive to have been caused by a flashlight. Indeed, a plug of skull bone matching the dimensions of the bend of a crowbar was actually punched out by the blow.

I assure you, my suspects exist, although one of them is likely dead. However, they will likely never be caught if LE does does not actively look for them. They will certainly not be caught if the investigation remains focused on the Ramsey family.

"The best evidence for their non-involvement is that neither of them wrote the ransom note."

This is by far the most sensible thing you've said in all your many posts. If it could be established that neither of them wrote that note, then of course an intruder must have been present in the house that night. Unfortunately, however, forensic documentation analysis is NOT science and these "experts" are often not permitted to air their opinions in court for that very reason.

The many problems with the decision to rule John out are discussed in several posts on this blog, beginning here:http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/ruled-out.html

We see from this post that John actually hired his own experts, whose task very clearly was to rule him out. And incredibly they were given access to a copy of the note by the DA's office. And not surprisingly they decided to rule JOhn out. According to PMPT they examined the note and Patsy and John's exemplars for only a few hours on a single day before coming to that decision. Their decision was then leaked to Newsweek magazine which referred to it in a article appearing only a few weeks after the murder.

When experts hired by law enforcement examined the note, they did it in cooperation with John's experts. In other words the decision to rule John out was tainted by association with people being paid for their opinion by the person who at that time was regarded as the leading suspect. I defy anyone to find anything similar in the long history of criminal investigation.

The bottom line is that simple common sense tells us that there is no way to rule anyone out when deliberate deception is involved. One can certainly claim that someone's writing looks very different from a given document, but that's to be expected when a document is obviously faked. I can't imagine what sort of science would enable them to be able to rule anyone out completely and if such a science exists, it's never been revealed to the public, that's for sure.

As far as your crowbar is concerned you have your facts wrong. The most likely weapon was the Ramsey's maglite:

"Dr. Werner Spitz, Macomb County, MI Medical Examiner, who worked on the JonBenet Ramsey case has demonstrated that "you can place the end of the flashlight perfectly into her wound."

It's the maglite that fits the wound not some crowbar. And since no crowbar was found, there's no point in speculating, since crowbars of all shapes and sizes exist, so a fit means nothing.

Also a blow from a crowbar would have lacerated the scalp and drawn a considerable amount of blood, but no external bleeding was found on or around her head. The head blow was discovered only during the autopsy, not the initial examination.

If you have specific suspects in mind, you need to name them, otherwise your theory is simply a mental exercise and nothing more.

"Unfortunately, however, forensic documentation analysis is NOT science and these "experts" are often not permitted to air their opinions in court for that very reason."

Handwriting and verbal analysis is not ALWAYS an exact science since it often depends upon subjective interpretation when the issue is DISGUISED handwriting. However, much of handwriting analysis and verbal analysis is exact science as handwriting and phrasing are entirely empirical phenomena and can be analyzed very scientifically. Therefore, it is completely in error to suggest that it has little or no value in criminal investigation.

Again, I remind you that if it is your opinion that JR wrote the ransom note, you are going to have to present some evidence to back up your claim, and much of that evidence will have to include handwriting and verbal analyses. This is the "War and Peace" of ransom notes. There was plenty of opportunity for JR to slip up and reveal himself through either personal handwriting quirks or idiosyncratic phrasing. Show us some examples. Your opinion, indeed your entire theory, will be of no substance until you do.

"In McVeigh, the court determined that the document examiner would not be allowed to testify to an opinion but instead could merely point out similarities and differences..."

"In Rutherford, the document examiner was allowed to point out similarities and differences found in the evidence but could not testify to an opinion."

"Since both the decision to rule John out and the many efforts to rule Patsy in date from 1997, they were clearly not based on the new standards, and there is some question as to whether these decisions followed any standards at all."

Never mind all that. We don't need an opinion. Just show us some examples where JR's handwriting or JR's peculiar choice of phrasing are obviously similar to that presented in the ransom note. This way, you will be presenting EMPIRICAL evidence to support your claim that JR wrote the ransom note.

Understand that this is not a court of law. It is an investigation. Polygraph and handwriting analyses are admissible. They might not be good enough to prove "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt," but they can certainly be used to support your theory.

"The bottom line is that simple common sense tells us that there is no way to rule anyone out when deliberate deception is involved."

You are assuming that there is deception when you have no rational reason for making such an assumption. It is entirely possible (indeed probable, considering the length of the note) that the note writer made little or no attempt to disguise either her handwriting or idiosyncratic phrasing, and simply wrote the note in her usual style of writing. Albeit, the contents of the note are obviously deceptive. However, there is a very big difference between writing two and a half pages of disinformation and altering one's handwriting.

The bottom line is that this much less a matter of ruling anyone out as it is a matter of ruling anyone in. Show us some matching examples between JR's writing and the writing presented in the note.

"Dr. Werner Spitz, Macomb County, MI Medical Examiner, who worked on the JonBenet Ramsey case has demonstrated that "you can place the end of the flashlight perfectly into her wound."

The good doctor whacked a piece of styrofoam with a Maglite and called it science.

Now, I ask you, "What is wrong with this picture?"

http://i46.tinypic.com/2z855si.jpg

Incidentally, Dr. Spitz's utterly useless experiment with the styrofoam determined that a golf club was the more likely weapon compared to the Maglite.

However, to be fair:

"Dr. Werner Spitz, the forensic pathologist, even ran macabre tests to see if the heavy flashlight could have inflicted the kind of massive skull fracture that was found on JonBenét. To do so, a child’s cadaver was obtained so he could strike the skull with a similar flashlight and examine the resulting injury pattern. He said the results were consistent, that the damage could have been caused by the flashlight—but it could also have been caused by other things." JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 267

Of course, this information is coming from Steve Thomas so it is about as useless as tits on a boar, in my opinion. Nevertheless, there is no good reason to believe that a flashlight necessarily caused such devastation to JonBenet's cranium.

What is more, I don't give a damn what Dr. Spitz or Steve Thomas says, this...:

http://www.jameson245.com/redskull.jpg

...was not caused by a flashlight. It was caused by something more like this:

A blow from a crowbar using the blunt protruding bend (not the fork) as the point of impact would not only have knocked a plug of skull out with dimensions nearly identical to that shown in the autopsy photo, but it would have also caused the 8 1/2 inch fissure.

The reason there was no bleeding is because JonBenet was garroted at the same time as she was struck on the head. Indeed, Wecht believes the strike on the head came subsequent to the garroting.

Unfortunately, the handwriting in the limited JR sample with which you had to work, though having similarities, is also quite distinguishable from that of the note writer.

Indeed, JR's handwriting, in the sample provided, is considerably less legible than the note writer's, and the opposite should be true if JR was attempting to disguise his handwriting in the ransom note.

"It's possible to contrive intruders who could have acted in all sorts of ways that might seem to account for everything, but without any actual suspect, it's all just an empty exercise. It could be used as an argument for reasonable doubt, I suppose, but it's so unlikely I can't imagine any lawyer actually trying that in court. He would in fact be demonstrating the absurdity of the intruder theory rather than arguing for it."

My "Burglary Gone Awry" theory is based upon logical inferences made from the available evidence. It is not based upon fanciful imagination and pure conjecture like your "John Did It" theory, which is.

Lets assume this is true for a moment, and try to follow it out to its logical conclusion. Under the assumption that the family is away for the holidays, a couple of burglars break into the Ramsey home. Before they are able to locate and steal anything of value, since we know that nothing was stolen, they encounter JBR somehow. We will ignore the details for now.

Now the burglars have a problem. They have been detected. However, this is a burglars' dream come true. The opportunity to kidnap a millionaire's daughter and extort a large some of cash. After all, they are in the business of stealing and extorting. Realizing what a great opportunity they have, they proceed to write an 'amateur ransom note' but don't want to get greedy so they only ask for $118,000. That amount, coincidentally, is the amount of John's bonus. Lets ignore that detail. So far so good.

Here's where things get a little fuzzy. The part where JBR ends up brutally murdered in the basement and the body left in the house. What went wrong? It has been asserted that while one of the burglars was writing the ransom note, the accomplice was in the basement committing murder. There are a couple of problems with this scenario.

First, what was the motive for murder? There was a golden opportunity to extort money. Extortion only works when the child is alive. Also, the penalty for murder is exponentially greater than kidnapping and extortion.

Second, there is no reason the accomplice should have taken JBR to the basement. The exit point would have been the front or back door on the main floor. Are we to assume the accomplice took her down the basement with the intent of exiting through the window, and upon realizing how difficult it would be to exit through the window with a child, decided it was easier to murder her instead of going back upstairs where the partner still was? Or are we to assume the accomplice had the urge to sexually assault her and couldn't control his urges?

Third, why was the murder so brutal? After all, it was a burglary gone bad and most burglars are not murderers. The brutality is completely unnecessary and inconsistent with a burglary gone bad.

Fourth, why wasn't the ransom note retrieved by the author once he realized that kidnapping was off the table? That would have been the only piece of evidence incriminating himself.

And last, but certainly not least, why didn't the author of the ransom note in this scenario, the one not guilty of murder, not report such a heinous crime to authorities? What motive does he have to protect his accomplice? He likely would have been given immunity for his testimony. For all of these reasons, the burglary gone bad theory is simply not plausible.

A. "This is a burglars' dream come true. The opportunity to kidnap a millionaire's daughter and extort a large some of cash."

This is NOT burglar's dream come true. This is their worst nightmare. As I have previously stated:

Kidnapping is not the sort of thing in which your average burglar indulges. Even highly skilled professional burglars will not engage in such crime. Kidnapping means the automatic intervention of the FBI. Most burglars are not interested in that sort of heat. In the United States, kidnapping for ransom is usually something that occurs between criminal organizations. For example, one drug gang might kidnap a high-ranking member of a rival drug gang and ransom the hostage for return of a drug shipment which the rival gang had previously hi-jacked.

Kidnapping for ransom, especially child kidnapping of the sort presented in this case, is probably the most foolish thing that a criminal could ever endeavor. The FBI will throw an enormous amount of their considerable weight into catching said criminal, and they absolutely will not stop their pursuit, wherever it takes them, anywhere in the world. They will chase the kidnappers to the moon if necessary, even if it takes 40, 50, 100 years to catch them.

B. "What was the motive for murder?"

The motive for murder was to keep JonBenet from identifying the burglars to police. She must have known one or both of them by name. What is more, if neither of the burglars had any sort of safe house to keep their hostage, kidnapping was ultimately untenable. However, the fact that they considered the idea long enough for one of them to write a ransom note tells us that we are not dealing with two hardcore sociopaths who could kill a child without even considering other options. At least one of the burglars had serious qualms about murdering JonBenet.

C. "There is no reason the accomplice should have taken JBR to the basement. The exit point would have been the front or back door on the main floor."

There is EVERY reason for the burglars to hide with JonBenet in the basement until they figured what their next move should be, since we are talking about perps who are not quite sociopathic enough to kill a little girl on the spot. Bear in mind, there is some possibility that the burglars had been hiding in the basement since the Ramseys came home from visiting the Whites. If this was the case, it would have been nearly reflex for them to return to the basement, taking JonBenet with them, until they decided what to do next.

D. "Why was the murder so brutal?

That is actually a good question. Assuming the burglars included a knife with their burglary tools, they could have simply cut JonBenet's throat and let her bleed out all over the basement. Why the hell would they go through so much trouble not to make a mess?

The answer to this question may point towards the nature of our burglars' personalities, and ultimately, their identities.

It could be that we are dealing with two females, both of whom are terribly squeamish at the sight of blood. The mere thought of bleeding out a six year old girl whom they knew and liked may have simply been unbearable. On the other hand, maybe they were simply planning on taking the body with them when they left and did not want to leave a trail of blood. Then changed their mind after the fact.

It could be that they attempted to suffocate JonBenet with duct tape but failed. The marks on her body which Kolar is certain are from Burke's electric model train are suspicious. Perhaps, they tried to electrocute her using the train set and failed?

Exactly how does one murder a child, especially if one has no prior experience with murdering anyone, and never had any intention of murdering anyone when they set out to burgle a home one Christmas Night?

In the end, it could be that our burglars decided that knocking JonBenet unconscious by smashing her over the head with a crowbar and immediately garroting her was the most humane way of killing her. They used what they had in their burglary kit: rope, tape, crowbar, and murdered her as quickly and efficiently as they deemed possible. Thus, as brutal as the murder appears, brutality, at least in the form of copious amounts of blood poured out all over the place, may have been what the burglars were trying to avoid.

True. However, the number of burglaries which morphed unintentionally into murders are incalculable. It happens all the time, and usually when the burglar is caught in the act.

F. "Why wasn't the ransom note retrieved by the author once he realized that kidnapping was off the table? That would have been the only piece of evidence incriminating himself."

Why? Because murder will out. If criminals were not so stupid and careless, our prisons would not be at maximum capacity. There is no such thing as the perfect crime, except for maybe this one, but only because the detectives investigating the crime were bigger dunces than the perpetrators. The ransom note was a huge mistake. It should have led the detectives to the perps, and probably would have, if they had not been so stupidly certain that the "Ramseys Did It."

G. "Why didn't the author of the ransom note in this scenario, the one not guilty of murder, not report such a heinous crime to authorities?"

Another good question. Fear? Intimidation? Death? Take your pick.

This was an upper middle class neighborhood. If the perps were both upper middle class neighbors, doing time in a maximum security prison would likely be too terrible for either of them to even contemplate. Not even the possibility of a reduced sentence of say... ten years for testifying against her codefendant would have been palatable enough to induce her to go to the authorities and confess, especially if there was no reason to think that the authorities suspected either of them.

Of course, there is a very good chance that this perp is dead, having been murdered by her more ruthless accomplice years ago.

I admire your concise, well thought out answers. I will admit that the burglary gone bad theory would be the only plausible intruder theory in my opinion. However, I still reject it.

Please refer to my post below regarding the likelihood of someone other than a family member being responsible in cases like these. The biggest obstacle that needs to be overcome is establishing opportunity beyond a reasonable doubt. No conclusive evidence has been put forth proving any intruder gained access to the home. No entry, therefore no opportunity, therefore no crime at the hands of an intruder.

How did two burglars enter the home, commit the crime, and exit without leaving any trace? The odds of that are incalculable.

I completely reject the notion that murder is a better alternative than kidnapping. If the motive for committing the murder was to protect their identities, the brutality is inconsistent with the motive. Also, taking your chances of being convicted of breaking and entering is the best and most plausible alternative of the three.

This theory also doesn't account for why any type of staging was done, i.e. arms bound with rope and duct tape placed over the mouth. It would be completely unnecessary.

I saw you post that the reason the body was wrapped in a blanket is due to remorse. This begs the question: how did the alleged burglars obtain the blanket?

If they were in her room and removed her from her bed, then subsequently murdering her to protect their identities is absurd. On the other hand, if they murdered her first, why would they risk going back upstairs to get a blanket and risk detection and possibly additional homicides?

I will await answers for these questions first. I have more. I think by the time it is all said and done this theory can be put to rest.

A. "The correct starting point is understanding what we know about crimes and how they occur based on statistics."

WRONG.

Statistics can be very informative. They can also be extremely misleading if they are not used properly, and this case may be the best example. You look at the evidence peculiar to the case first. THIS IS YOUR STARTING POINT, not broad statistical references.

B. "How did two burglars enter the home, commit the crime, and exit without leaving any trace? The odds of that are incalculable."

The odds are not at all incalculable considering the degree to which the crime scene was contaminated and the fact that forced entry may not have been necessary. What sort of traces would you expect to have been found?

- Fingerprints? These were burglars. Hence, they were inclined to wearing gloves.

- Hair samples? Again these were burglars. They would have been inclined to wear hats.

- Signs of forced entry? In this case, there is a very good chance that the burglars had a key to the house. That being said, pry marks were discovered on one of the back doors.

C. "I completely reject the notion that murder is a better alternative than kidnapping."

Its a free country. You can think what you will. However, I suggest that you consider the fact that even if they did kidnap JonBenet, they would have had to murder her in the end anyway since she could identify them. Also, bear in mind that the kidnapping for ransom of a six year old girl in the United States will get you what is effectively a life sentence should you be convicted.

D. "If the motive for committing the murder was to protect their identities, the brutality is inconsistent with the motive."

We already discussed this. See above post.

E. "Taking your chances of being convicted of breaking and entering is the best and most plausible alternative of the three."

Good point. That our burglars could possibly equate a burglary conviction with a murder conviction is telling.

It could tell us that our burglars may have been quite young and naive, with no prior experience with the criminal justice system, and believed that they would absolutely being going to prison if they were convicted of burglary.

It could also tell us that one or both of our burglars feared that such a conviction would be devastating to their careers. Say, for example, one of our burglars is a decorated law enforcement officer, a detective even. Such a conviction would mean the end of his career, his pension, his marriage, his honor and prestige in the community.

F. "This theory also doesn't account for why any type of staging was done."

If there was indeed staging, then at least one of our burglars is likely to be a detective, the son or daughter of a detective, or someone trained in forensics and crime scene investigation.

G. "How did the alleged burglars obtain the blanket?"

Perhaps, JonBenet came bounding down the stairs wrapped in the blanket when she encountered our burglars. Perhaps, the blanket was in the dryer in the basement and the burglars gave it to her to help calm her down. How would they know to do this? They knew the family. They knew JonBenet.

H. "If they were in her room and removed her from her bed, then subsequently murdering her to protect their identities is absurd."

They would not have removed her from her bed. Most likely, JonBenet heard them fumbling about downstairs and believed it was Santa Claus coming to pay her a special visit. She came down the stairs on her own volition and discovered the burglars in the house.

"Statistics can be very informative. They can also be extremely misleading if they are not used properly"

That is a true statement. Statistics are only useful when they are interpreted correctly and applied correctly. The question becomes how should we interpret and apply the following fact to this case?

Fact: We know that with few exceptions, a family member is always responsible in cases like these.

The key to correctly interpreting and applying this fact is subtle and counterintuitive. It is essential that you correctly answer one key question. Who should be excluded first: Family members or intruders?

The intuitive answer would be: Due to the extreme unlikelihood that someone other than a family member is responsible, the evidence should be evaluated to see if the family members can be excluded first. This answer is incorrect.

The correct interpretation would be: Since there is a remote possibility that someone other than a family member could be responsible, the evidence should be evaluated to see if an intruder can be excluded first.

Now lets evaluate the evidence to see if an intruder can be excluded. The starting point for excluding an intruder would be to evaluate opportunity. If an intruder didn't gain access to the home, then they could not have committed this crime.

Is there concrete evidence that an intruder gained access? No. The correct interpretation, then, would be that access was not gained, thereby excluding an intruder. The incorrect interpretation would be that the intruder must have had a key.

Ignoring that for a moment, lets look at motive. Was there a clear motive? No. The correct interpretation would be that there was no intruder. The incorrect interpretation would be that the intruder had a clear motive for entering the home (burglary), was detected so changed their motive on the fly (to kidnapping), reconsidered and changed their motive again after thinking it through (to murder), and as an added bonus decided to commit another crime (sexual assault).

If you still believe a burglary gone bad theory is plausible, let me know. I will then try to provide a thorough and comprehensive case against it.

"Is there concrete evidence that an intruder gained access? No. The correct interpretation, then, would be that access was not gained."

WRONG, AGAIN!!!

I don't want to insult you, but you are trying my patience. We have been over this at least twice. What is your problem?

For at least the third time:

THE CRIME SCENE WAS BADLY CONTAMINATED!!!

Therefore, there could easily have been evidence of an intruder that was inadvertently destroyed.

Therefore, it would be completely in error to suggest that, since no evidence of an intruder was found, there could not possibly have been an intruder.

Imagine if you wake up one morning and find that the stereo has been stolen from your car. While you are inside calling the police, your car is towed for being parked in front of a fire hydrant.

When the police arrive, they turn to you and say, "I don't see any evidence that your car stereo has been stolen. I don't even see a car. Therefore, your car stereo could not possibly have been stolen."

"How would they know to do this? They knew the family. They knew JonBenet."

You've already admitted that the level of brutality was inconsistent with the motive of covering their identities. Doesn't it make that theory less even less likely if they knew her?

So essentially what you want me to believe is this. The kidnappers knew JonBenet and had enough compassion to give her a blanket to comfort her because she was afraid, then brutally murdered her to protect their identities in a manner inconsistent even for a stranger, and then covered her body because they felt remorse afterwards?

I am not arguing that your theory isn't possible. It is obvious you've invested a great deal of time, effort and consideration. However, I reject the theory based on its plausibility. I trust you understand the difference between possible and plausible.

I will try to summarize the main issues with your theory:

Issue: No evidence of forced entry.Explanation: The burglar must have had a key.

Issue: Nothing of value was taken from the house.Explanation: They were detected before they had the chance.

Issue: One burglar couldn't have done all of this.Explanation: There must have been two burglars.

Issue: No physical evidence was discovered inside the home.Explanation: It was there. The crime scene was just so badly contaminated that the police must have missed it.

Issue: No clear motive.Explanation: The motive was burglary. That changed when they were detected. The motive then changed to kidnapping, which explains the ransom letter. The burglars reconsidered again. They now decided against kidnapping because of FBI involvement. The motive is now to protect their identities so they brutally murder a child they allegedly knew because murder is better than kidnapping. They then sexually assaulted her before wrapping her body in blanket out of remorse.

Main issue: Even though a family member is guilty essentially 100% of the time in crimes like these, you want me to reject that and accept your theory without ANY evidence. I can only reject its plausibility based on its one in a billion (at least) chance that it could have happened.

I will ask one final question for you before agreeing to disagree. Since these alleged burglars were privy to so much information about the family and even had a key, and they had knowledge that the family was going out of town, isn't it odd that they didn't know WHEN they were leaving?

"After murdering JonBenet, the only goal for the burglars would have been to get out of there without getting caught."

So how exactly does that figure in with then scrounging around for paper and Sharpie to write the "War and Peace" of ransom notes, all the while disguising the handwriting with extra squiggles, and which just so happens to turn out looking like John or Patsy's handwriting depending upon which expert is asked, not to mention wiping down assorted elements of the crime, redressing Jonbenet etc.?

An open question to people who are convinced that a cold blooded murder was committed:

Regardless of who you think is guilty, can you please articulate a reasonable explanation as to why JBR's arms were bound and duct tape placed over her mouth?

The reason I ask is this. If, for whatever reason, the perpetrator bludgeons her and immediately garrotes her with the intent to kill, why would it be necessary to tie her up and place the tape over her mouth later? After all, she would be dead at that point. If you say it occurred before she died, when and for what purpose was it done?

The only reasonable explanation would be for child porn. The investigators asked Patsy about pictures found in the basement. Perhaps the pictures are related to the murder. Why didn't they show the pictures to Patsy for an answer? Could it be the pictures depicted sexual poses?

I think the bindings and duct tape were staging. In anticipation of the body being found in some remote area, after John had an opportunity to dump it there (an opportunity that never came, thanks to Patsy's 911 call). The intention would have been to give the impression she'd been bound and gagged by the kidnappers who then assaulted and murdered her. John would have prepared the body in advance so when the time came he could simply take it to the trunk of his car, drive off, and dump it.

Duct tape may have been placed over the mouth at the time of the murder because the perps were afraid their victim might let out a blood curdling scream upon being struck over the head.

If the perps were burglars who had never killed anyone before, they might have misinterpreted postmortem twitching as an indication that JonBenet might still be alive, and therefore applied the tape to her mouth in order to guarantee that she would stop breathing or would not be able to yell for help in the event that she somehow regained consciousness.

As far as "staging" is concerned, if this was indeed staging then it may be an indication that at least one of our burglars is familiar with homicide investigations and was attempting to misdirect detectives into believing that the primary motive was pedophilia.

When it comes to consideration of any intruder theory, I have noticed that most people do not approach the issue the right way. The correct starting point is understanding what we know about crimes and how they occur based on statistics.

For example, we know that when a young child is killed inside of their own home, especially at night, and both parents are also in the home, the perpetrator is always a family member. Anything is possible of course, but exceptions are extremely rare. This fact is taken way too lightly by IDI theorists, imo.

What does this mean? It means that the burden of proof rests with the IDI theorists, not the other way around. It is a family member unless proven otherwise. Before any intruder theory can be considered, the elements of means, motive and opportunity have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Has that been demonstrated in this case? Absolutely not. No clear motive has been defined. The alleged intruder did not possess a means to commit the crime. Instead, they had to rely on items located inside the home. And no concrete evidence exists that proves an intruder gained access to the home. Therefore, opportunity to commit the crime has not been established.

Conclusion: Having not proven the elements of means, motive and opportunity beyond a reasonable doubt, we can only conclude that a family member was responsible.

I've actually been surprised at the relatively high degree of civility maintained by the great majority posting here. I'm really grateful for that. There will always be exceptions of course -- but I would rather not police this forum, so unless someone posts something with no redeeming value whatsoever, I'll allow it.

Well this case continues to fascinate and probably always will until it gets resolved, which it most likely never will barring some miraculous revelation. Of course one hates to say never with all the modern forensics we have. I believe that foreign DNA is still on file. I, like you, used to believe the Ramseys had to be involved in some way but over time I've become convinced it was an intruder. Let me present a likely scenario of what happened that fateful Christmas day that explains the 2 questions you asked. The Ramseys were absent for hours that day. Most likely an individual, possibly someone who lived in the area and had a fixation on Jonbenet, entered that home. How? Who knows, evidently the Ramseys were lax with security and may have left a door unlocked. The intruder, who may have been in the house before, cases the whole place and hides out in the basement. His intention is to abduct JonBenet so he goes down there with Patsy's stationary and rights this rambling note. Later that night the killer leaves the pages on the stairs, creeps up and subdues JonBenet. He brings her back down to his hiding place in the basement, possibly with the intention to further restrain her before he leaves the house. Evidently, something went wrong or he decided to kill her deliberately. This is a very plausible scenario that explains both why there was a ransom note but no kidnapping and why the body was left down there.

Your scenario doesn't really take into account any of the really difficult issues with any intruder theory. While it's true the Ramseys may have left a door unlocked, that doesn't explain the disturbance at the basement window, which looks very much like insider staging that never got completed. It also doesn't explain John's blatant lies regarding his story about breaking that window the previous summer. Those lies should have been obvious. The window was clearly broken the night of the crime, to stage a phoney intruder breakin.

I see no reason why someone intent on kidnapping would have taken the trouble to write that long note while hidden in the house rather than bring one with him. And if the decision to fake a kidnapping occurred to him after killing his victim, then he would simply have called the Ramseys the next morning, demanding his ransom as soon as possible. No need to write a note. And certainly no need to write a hand printed note. Also no reason to write a note telling his victims he'll be calling them the following morning, well over 24 hours after hiding his victim in the basement.

Your scenario also doesn't explain why JonBenet's panties were changed. She was found wearing panties several sizes too large for her and obviously not the panties she was wearing when she was put to bed. Why would an intruder bother to do that? If his sperm got on her panties, he would simply have taken them with him -- instead, he goes back upstairs to find a pair with "Wednesay" on them and then goes back down to the basement to redress her in those? Sorry, but that makes no sense.

Also, as I've stated many times before, an intruder with no gloves would have left fingerprints and "touch" DNA all over the place and it would have been found right away. And an intruder with gloves would have left none at all.

I'm sorry, but I see no possible intruder scenario, at least none that accounts for all the evidence.

Who said JR lied about the window? Forensic examiners found undisturbed dust on and around the window sill and would've expected to see signs of disturbance if an intruder came in that way. It certainly would've been disturbed if JR had been staging the area. But it wasn't. Note Length? Why write a rambling note knowing that every new word would incriminate him. He wouldn't. He wouldn't have written a note at all. He would've tried to get rid of the body, which he didn't. Early on JR gave exemplars of his handwriting to the police. All the forensic document examiners eliminated JR as the author of that note. Could he have faked the exemplars? No. Can't be done and any document analyst would've known he was faking. One thing is absolutely certain, JR did not write the note. Much has been said about the content of the note itself. What I would tell anyone is, don't take it too literally. Most likely that note was written to mislead. The person had no intention of collecting a ransom but wanted to make it look that way. I believe the intruder simply wanted to abduct JB and leave the premises but something went wrong. It's my contention that the person was in the house when the Ramseys weren't home. The offender may have seen them leave. Whether he had prior knowledge of the layout of the house cannot be determined but they ended up hiding in the basement. The house was a good size but it wasn't a mansion. This person is not a professional kidnapper. He writes a long rambling note while waiting for the family to return. I tend to think the intruder came with a note already prepared and transcribed it to the family stationary so it could not be traced back to him. Panties? JB had different sized panties and she often wet or soiled herself. She may have got up and put on new panties and went back to bed. Or she simply had over-sized panties on when she went to bed. Whoever said she didn't may be mistaken. As I stated earlier the offender most certainly wore gloves, possibly surgical gloves. It is my contention that the intruder came prepared. Remember, the roll of duct tape that was used to tape JB's mouth shut was never found. The killer took it with him. Touch DNA is has only been around since the late 2000's and was not available in 1996. Perfect prints are often not left and partials lead nowhere. Doesn't matter though since the intruder definitely wore gloves. So as you see, the intruder theory works very well. One thing I am absolutely certain of is that JR did not kill JB or write that note. Steve Thomas (who believed it was PR) and the Boulder PD eliminated JR quite early on and he was not pursued as a suspect. I, myself, in the early days thought maybe it was PR because there were some similarities(albeit distant ones) in her writings to the ransom note itself. Digging into the case I soon realized she had nothing to do with the death of JB. After all, why would she appear on live TV, clearly heavily medicated, and risk blabbing something incriminating if she was guilty. She wouldn't. As for Burke, there simply is no evidence that he was involved in anything. Some believe they can hear Burke on that 911 tape in the background. I've listened to it carefully through good headphones, there's some digital noise and nothing more. So what's left? To use the too often cited quote of Sherlock Holmes: When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. Conclusion, Intruder. Has to be. I personally have no agenda or pet theory. Pet theories are dangerous because it leads to twisting facts to fit a theory. I could care less one way or the other if the Ramseys were involved or not. The evidence says they weren't. If you or anyone wishes to discuss the case with me feel free to email me at:ppadian@msn.com Thanks,Pete

Pete, I appreciate your efforts, and I'm glad to see you posting here -- but anyone following this case seriously over the years could come up with more or less the same set of "good reasons" for accepting an intruder scenario. I've been reading variations on essentially the same thing, with many of the same reasons for believing this or that, for many years. (Too many, to be honest, since I feel rather embarrassed to have spent so much time on this case. I DO have a life and I do have other pursuits, believe me.) It all sounds fine until one hears the other side of the story (i.e., one of "the Ramseys" did it, with Patsy writing the note), and that too can sound very convincing.

The problem is NOT that there aren't "good reasons" for doubting the Ramseys could have done it. Nor is there any lack of "good reasons" for insisting they must have done it. The problem is that both theories have serious holes no one has ever been able to account for. Which is why I finally decided to concentrate on what I knew for sure about the case and what could logically be inferred from what I knew. And what I came up with fits Sherlock's formula to a tee. When you have eliminated the impossible, then whatever remains, however, improbable, has to be true.

There are too many serious holes in any intruder theory to make such a theory possible. It is of course all too easy to make a case for an intruder when you either leave out or gloss over some of these holes, but they won't go away and they will never go away, because no intruder theory makes any sense at all.

There is also at least one huge hole in the "Ramseys did it" theory. If Patsy and John were in it together they would never have agreed to call 911 while the body was still in the house. I'm sure you'll agree on that score, but you might be amazed to learn of the many still posting on the forums who nevertheless insist that this was part of their plan, instead of a huge hole in their theory.

So we've been going round and round from your side of the fence to their side of the fence for years and years, with no resolution. What I've done was find a resolution by, first, eliminating the impossible (EITHER an intruder OR Ramseys in on it together), and considering what remained, regardless of how improbable it might seem. And what I discovered was a possibility hardly anyone had ever considered, that John could have done it all on his own. (continued in following comment)

John being solely responsible for both the murder and the coverup, including the note, might seem unlikely (i.e., improbable) because 1. he was ruled out as writer of the note; and 2. because he apparently told Patsy to make the 911 call. Nevertheless, John's being ruled out is NOT a fact, it's only an opinion. And as improbable as it might seem that all the "experts" examining his exemplars would come to that same conclusion by mistake (or by being manipulated by John, who was after all the one who supplied the exemplars), it's not impossible that this is in fact what could have happened: that they simply made a mistake. Forensic doc examination is NOT science, and the identification of a writer deliberately disguising his hand (rather than forging someone else's) is not the sort of thing these people do very often, if at all.

As far as John's telling Patsy to call 911, that too is not a fact, but an allegation. While it's true that Patsy has never publicly questioned that story, it is also true that she provided a very different version in the A&E documentary, where she says it was her idea. As improbable as it might sound, I believe Patsy was being manipulated by John into supporting his version of what happened, because initially HE was the no. 1 suspect, and he was the one the police were scrutinizing with a fine tooth comb. If the call was her idea and he was against it, that would eliminate a very valuable part of his alibi. And if she had had any doubts, the decision to rule John out would have reassured her that he couldn't possibly have written the note and therefore must be as innocent as she was.

Thus, if we go by Sherlock's dictum, and eliminate both Tweedle Dee AND Tweedle Dum, and we are willing to accept a view of the case that might seem improbable, but is in fact not impossible, we come up with John and only John. This is the basis for my thinking on the case.

However, there is a lot more to it than the basic logic and in the rest of this blog I delve into many of the other details, demonstrating that the case makes sense ONLY if John is the sole perp. I suggest you read more here to learn what those details are.

I've examined John's testimony in that regard in a series of posts beginning here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/clear-evidence-of-staging-basement.html

If you read carefully you'll see that his testimony is simply not credible.

I also invite you to read here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-scene-at-window.html

"One thing is absolutely certain, JR did not write the note."

No, he wrote it. What you're saying is that John's writing it seems unlikely, because of what the "experts" claimed. But experts are often proven wrong. Just think of all the "experts" who accepted those forged Vermeers as genuine, paintings that today look like what they are: obvious forgeries. Here again I'll refer you to a blog post where I compare John's printing to that of the note. If you think there is no resemblance, then you should have no trouble sorting things out: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/some-handwriting-evidence.html

Thanks for responding but John definitely didn't do it. To dismiss the document examiners findings is a big mistake. People have very definite writing patterns and there are many levels of document analysis wherein a point system is used to compare the exemplars to the original. You can say it's not science to bolster your theory but I would say the study is very scientific in it's approach. Do people make mistakes? Sure they do but I believe at least a dozen forensic examiners studied JR's exemplars and found no similarities to the ransom note. None. Also, the contents of the note were written in a style and language dissimilar to JR's. Now you could say he was just being clever in what he wrote. I submit that JR was operating in panic mode, as he would be, and couldn't compose a note like that after just killing his daughter. The language of the note is actually quite logical and well composed with very few typos. Not what one would expect from someone who just killed his own kid. By everyone's account he loved his daughter and there was never any evidence that he was abusing her. That nonsense was all later discredited. But you're willing to dismiss all the examiners findings which frankly I think is just nuts. JR didn't write the note. In fact, of all the theories, JR having killed JB was discarded way back and no investigator that I know of considers him a viable suspect anymore. Nobody does really. Patsy was always the main suspect but I don't believe she was involved either. I haven't read this guy Kolar's book but evidently, from reviews I've read, he implies that Burke did it. Sounds ridiculous to me but the Amazon people seem to agree with his solution. Everybody has their own theory. The crazy ransom note notwithstanding, the Ramseys behavior before and after the murder also convinced me of their innocence in many ways. Why wouldn't JR get rid of the body, why write a note at all that would implicate him, etc. I could go on and on. So no, the Ramseys didn't do it and what's left is an intruder. Just because you don't think an intruder could have done all these things doesn't mean it didn't happen. One thing I am certain of is that the note was written before the crime. Like I said, probably transcribed. Sadly I'll probably never be proven right because the case will never be solved. Although, funny thing. I always thought Albert DeSalvo was the Boston Strangler and acted alone. Just a few days ago DNA was linked between him and his latest victim. Not a bunch of stranglers, as others claimed. Just one guy, Desalvo. Right again. I hadn't looked into the JB Ramsey case in quite a few months. Yesterday I was looking at my youtube inbox and there was a comment in there from one I must've left about a JB vid a while back. That person kept pushing this book Foreign Faction. I believe you posted your blog link in an article about that book. That's how I found this. Aren't you glad I came, lol. Your theory won't be disproved because the case won't be solved. Of course that's what they said about the Green River Killer and look what happened. So, who knows?

"To dismiss the document examiners findings is a big mistake. People have very definite writing patterns and there are many levels of document analysis wherein a point system is used to compare the exemplars to the original. You can say it's not science to bolster your theory but I would say the study is very scientific in it's approach."

If that's the case, then why did so many "experts" decide Patsy wrote the note? They too claimed to be using scientific methods. They too used a point system. You are simply ignoring those aspects of the case that don't suit you. If you look carefully through this blog you'll see that I have ignored nothing. You may not agree with my take on these issues, but at least I address them.

I can't tell you how many people swear up and down Patsy HAS to be the one who wrote the note, they are sure beyond the shadow of a doubt. So when you assure me John could not possibly have written it, and it must have been written by an intruder, what am I to think? I need some reason to conclude the experts who mean something to you are right and the other experts are wrong. Why? On what basis?

At least we have the reports of most of the Patsy dunnit experts. I've examined them on this blog, starting here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-experts-see-patsy-part-1cina-wong.html

From the experts you cite, we have nothing at all. No reports, no explanations, no analyses, just a pronouncement. From on high. Sorry, but that's not good enough.

It's not a question of dismissing the document examiners, because there are actually two sets of such examiners, each on a different side of the fence. Each set has in effect dismissed the conclusions of the other.

I see no reason to accept the opinions of either set as gospel. Why should I, when they contradict each other so strongly?

"I believe at least a dozen forensic examiners studied JR's exemplars and found no similarities to the ransom note." Actually there were six. Two of these had been hired by John's attorneys. These were the first to rule him out and the others essentially rubber stamped that first opinion. This same group also found it unlikely that Patsy wrote the note. Yet at least five other credentialed examiners felt sure Patsy wrote it.

And no this is not recognized as a science -- many judges have refused to allow the opinions of such "expert" witnesses in their courtrooms for this reason. If John is ever brought to trial, the opinions of the experts you cite may also not be allowed, depending on the judge. For the details see http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/ruled-out-part-2.html

"Also, the contents of the note were written in a style and language dissimilar to JR's." See http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2013/02/johnisms.html

"Why wouldn't JR get rid of the body, why write a note at all that would implicate him, etc."

see http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-purpose-of-note.html

I'm sorry Pete, but I've given a lot more thought to this case than you and I've already considered every objection you've raised, which should be clear as you browse through this blog. There are some very deep mysteries associated with this case that those taking one side or the other systematically ignore. It's only when we step back to consider the case in an entirely new light that we have any hope of solving it. I believe that's what I have done.

Ok Doc I just read the blog post entitled-The purpose of the note. Fascinating stuff. Not saying I believe a word of it but fascinating nonetheless. Let me make sure I've got it correctly: JR kills JB either accidentally or intentionally. I gather you believe he's been sexually abusing her. For some reason he doesn't have time to dispose of the body, possibly the sun is coming up, etc. I believe Patsy said they were getting up very early that day to leave town. She woke before 6AM when she found the note. It's been a while and I may have the times a bit off. Nevertheless, JR is unable to get rid of the body at that time. He's in panic mode and Patsy and Burke are going to be getting up really soon and how to explain the missing JB! So, according to you, he composes this long rambling note to explain why JB is missing (she's been kidnapped) and also to scare the Bejeesus out of PR to keep her from calling the cops. Basically he's got to buy himself some time. Also, the stuff about the money was to allow JR to get out of the house at some point so he could dispose of the body. Obviously, at some point he has to get PR and BR out of the house so he can move the body to his car. How am I doing so far? JR leaves the note on the stairs where Patsy is sure to find it when she wakes. He believes she is going to read it and not contact the cops like it says but she does anyway and now his plan is blown. One major flaw in all this is the note itself. There is a ton of extraneous and unnecessary stuff that JR wouldn't need to include to pull this off. Now you could say he was in panic mode and wasn't thinking clearly but I would counter that the content of that note is, for the most part, very straightforward, each paragraph following logically. It doesn't show signs of panic. Let me try and elucidate. According to you, all JR has to do is convince PR that JB has been kidnapped. All that nonsense about a foreign faction, we respect your business but not the country that it serves, etc. Why put all this in there? The stuff about the money being tampered with, scanned for electronic devices, the victory SBTC. None of this would be necessary to accomplish what you claim. The RN could simply have stated-we have your daughter, if you contact the cops we'll kill her. Please get $100, 000 ready in unmarked bills, etc. That would have been enough to scare Patsy from dialing 911 and give him an excuse to get the cash. But the note has tons of nonsense. I could go on and on. I did look at the Ramsey exemplar you provided and saw a bunch of dissimilarities, many of the t's in the RN have curls on the bottom and none in the exemplar, the letter s looks different, etc. A forensic document expert would show me discrepancies I'd never dream about. Honestly, if even a few experts found some similarities I may have had some doubt. The simple fact is they all ruled out JR and to think they're all wrong is patently absurd. The Vermeer forgers were master forgers, so was the guy who faked Mormon documents. Comparing JR to these people is laughingly ridiculous.

You're making all sorts of assumptions, Pete. The note was not a test of John's efficiency, it was a desperate attempt to accomplish several different things at once, not the least of which would be to make it sound like a real ransom note, the kind of thing a real kidnapper might write.

What counts is that the note contains everything John would have needed to carry out the plan I've outlined. And that's a tall order. He needs to frighten Patsy into not calling the police; he needs to convince her that searching the house would be pointless; he needs to make it clear that HE and not Patsy is the object of the note and the one the kidnappers want to deal with; he needs to set up a ransom delivery scenario, precisely timed to give him a full day, if he needs it, to do all the things he'd need to do; he needs to establish just the right ransom amount -- not too much because he's going to have to destroy it at some point; he needs to include the sort of stock phrases and sarcastic taunts "typically" used in ransom notes, to make it look real; and he needs to make it extra scary to be extra sure Patsy will be frightened enough to follow the instructions "to the letter."

As I see it, the note is just about as long as it needed to be. And by the way, as far as the coldness of the note and the degree of self control it would take to write it, let me remind you that John's nickname was "the ice man."

"All that nonsense about a foreign faction, we respect your business but not the country that it serves, etc. Why put all this in there? The stuff about the money being tampered with, scanned for electronic devices, the victory SBTC. None of this would be necessary"

I think he put that in there to make it sound authentic, as though it had been written by a real kidnapper, someone very tough and also someone in a position to monitor a police call.

"I did look at the Ramsey exemplar you provided and saw a bunch of dissimilarities, many of the t's in the RN have curls on the bottom and none in the exemplar, the letter s looks different, etc." Yes, of course there would be dissimilarities. He was hiding his identity. But there are also many striking similarities he wasn't able to hide. Far more than what we see from Patsy's exemplars, by the way. This particular exemplar appeared years ago in one of the tabloids and was probably never even seen by the "experts" who ruled him out. If John were ambidextrous it's possible the printing using his other hand was very different.

And yes Patsy Ramsey was never completely eliminated but the correlation was very weak. I don't think she was involved. I do applaud your creativity in making that note fit your theory to JR. Well done, you should be a mystery writer! It reads like one! I know the case pretty well, you may know it better than me. Steve Thomas, Lou Smit, the FBI, etc. know the case better than you and they ruled out JR years ago. I have no pet theory. I came to the conclusion that the Ramseys were innocent and the only thing left is an intruder. You, my friend, have a pet theory and you've tailored that note to fit it. It reads like fiction because it is. I'll leave you with one final thought-If JR created the note for Patsy, why in God's name didn't he pretend to find it and wake up Patsy and make sure she wouldn't call the cops. After all he couldn't be sure she wouldn't call them when SHE found it! Think about it. Makes no sense.Pete

If my theory is a "pet theory" then so is yours. Sorry, but that's the way it goes. Anyone's theory can be described in such terms, so the phrase is meaningless.

As far as I've been able to determine, Steve Thomas and the others ruled out John for one reason and one reason only: they accepted the verdict of the handwriting "experts" who ruled him out. I've been told on good authority that prior to that finding, he was THE suspect, the only one. This decision of the so-called "experts" imo is the key to the case, it turned the whole thing around and after that nothing made sense. Rule him back in and everything makes sense.

As far as your last point is concerned, clearly there was no way John could have expected to control Patsy's activities all morning long. Which is why the note contains so many threats. How could he possibly "make sure she wouldn't call the cops." The note was a desperate act by a desperate man and he had to hope and pray she'd go along with it. And by the way, in the A&E doc. she said he went upstairs and she went downstairs to make the call. Looks to me like she faked him out. Once 911 was dialed it would have been too late.

She said John was going to check on Burke when she told him she was going downstairs to make the call. So John would have been headed upstairs while she went downstairs.

What's really important, however, is not which version is true (probably neither) but the fact that the two versions contradict one another -- which leads us to seriously doubt their official story. Now why would they want to lie about who said what at that point?

Well we'll have to agree to disagree. You're wrong about Steve Thomas though. Steve Thomas wasn't fully convinced of JR's innocence until he interrogated him. This was pointed out in Schiller's book. He made a comment to the effect that JR had nothing to do with JB's death. He did believe PR was being deceptive. Go figure. Lou Smit and John Douglas met the Ramseys and, after spending time with them, believed they were innocent. They met these people, you haven't. The document examiners unilaterally ruled JR out. They had all the exemplars to work with, you haven't even seen them. You do have a pet theory and to prove it you have to make that long rambling note fit in with JR's plans. All he would've needed to do really is convince PR not to call the police and, for that matter, not tell anybody about the kidnapping. At least keep her mouth shut long enough for him to get rid of the body. He could have accomplished that easily with a few sentences and made it so that HE discovers the note and presents it to her. Then he can instruct her further and take control of the situation. I believe she would have followed his orders. But that's not what happens. Instead we have this crazy ass rambling note with extraneous garbage in it like "we respect your country but not the country that it serves" or "the delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested". I'm laughing as I'm writing this because it's all so nuts. Anybody who knows anything about ransom notes knows they are always very brief like, "we have your kid, get half a million dollars together, we'll contact you in a day for instructions". In fact so much of that note has the qualities of something a young person would right. Albeit, a not entirely illiterate one. But, what happens? He puts the pages down for her to find, figuring she won't call the police. That's pretty risky. He's lost control that way. If JR killed JB there's no way he was getting any sleep that night so he's basically waiting for PR to find the note and you can be damn sure he's not letting her out of his sight. He would've ripped the phone out of her hands if she tried to call the cops. Like I said he would've staged it so that he finds the note, not her. This way he controls the outcome. You say his behavior was the desperate act of a desperate man. But you also said he was known as the "ice man". That note is a controlled piece of writing. It does not seem to be written in a state of panic. There are hardly any stray marks, etc you'd expect to see by someone writing, in this case, under extreme duress. I submit that JR may have been called an "ice man" in his business dealings. But, if he killed his daughter, was in full on panic mode. There is no way that note was written by somebody after a murder like this. It's way to controlled and way too long.

Steve Thomas decided to give John "a pass" some time after the "experts" ruled him out. Since that pronouncement was never questioned, and the intruder theory was so lame, he really had no choice but to focus on Patsy. Lou Smit was the only one in LE to argue for an intruder, but his arguments are easily shredded. I shredded them years ago in "The Lou Smit Show" (see http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-lou-smit-show.html) And Kolar shreds them in his book, which you should read.

"The document examiners unilaterally ruled JR out. They had all the exemplars to work with, you haven't even seen them." Pete, just about every aspect of this case has been gone over with a fine tooth comb and argued endlessly, with one exception: the decision to rule John out. We have no way of knowing what exemplars they had, because none of that has ever been made public. Nor do we have any idea of what sort of analysis they employed, because no report has ever been made public. We've seen Patsy's exemplars strewn across the front pages of the tabloids, but for John we have only this one item, which most likely wasn't part of the investigation. Every other aspect of the case has been studied and every single aspect has been questioned, including the findings of "experts" like the medical examiner, Cyril Wecht, John Douglas, the guy who gave them the polygraph, etc. and the opinions of NONE of these people have been accepted without question. So why should the document examiners be the exception?

"You do have a pet theory and to prove it you have to make that long rambling note fit in with JR's plans." That's how you prefer to see it, because it doesn't fit with YOUR pet theory. I haven't MADE the note fit anything. How could I possibly do that without altering it? It already fits like a glove as is. My theory is the only one that actually explains that note. The note makes sense ONLY if we see it as part of a plan concocted by John to stage a phoney kidnapping. And there is nothing in it that isn't consistent with the plan I outlined. It certainly makes no sense as the work of an intruder. And of course you conveniently refrain from getting into that aspect at all. If you can't accept that John would write such a long note, then what about your intruder, why would he bother to do that? What do you think could have been on HIS mind?

As far as John worrying about Patsy discovering the note, you put your thought processes into his head. Maybe that's how you would have thought, but I see no reason to assume John's take would have been the same. John may well have felt confident he could manipulate Patsy into doing exactly what he wanted her to do.

You've given me credit for writing a fascinating piece of fiction. But sorry, I am happy to give all the credit to John. He's the genius, not me. Everything I've found in that note is something HE put into it, I added nothing.

John being an evil genius while operating in full panic mode with the clock ticking surely makes no sense either. Not to mention the fact that Patsy would surely have recognized his handwriting. Nobody is that good at hiding their handwriting, especially while in panic mode. I'm not buying that at all but I'm sure you've got an answer for that. It's obvious you've got an answer for everything. While I can't begin to speculate on the motivations of the killer I do believe the intention of this individual was to abduct JB but something went wrong. I stated that in one of the earlier posts. The whole foreign faction bit and all the reassurances throughout is to make the cops think that it's some organized group of kidnappers from some exotic place and not a lone offender. The intention is to mislead. Much was made of the $118,000. People said it was close to JR's bonus that year. If the killer had asked for $125,000 or some other such figure, people would've found some way to match it to another of JR's finances. I don't attach much significance to it. I don't believe the killer had any intention of collecting. It's not up to me to prove exactly how it all went down because I don't specifically know who this unknown entity is and, unless he's caught, it can never be known. I'm just speculating. You, on the other hand believe it was JR, so you better have all your i's dotted and t's crossed to prove that one. BTW, are you really so arrogant as to think that you're the only one to have work-shopped the JR scenario as you described. Like you said thousands of law enforcement people combed over this case and the RN. The findings of the doc examiners notwithstanding, I'm sure they all looked at the note through JR's eyes, as the author of that note. Obviously, they're not seeing what you're seeing because I've never seen a "solution" such as yours offered by any of the lead investigators. Who are you? You're some guy like me playing armchair detective. Lou Smit has investigated hundreds of homicides, have you? He thinks it's an intruder. He may be wrong about the point of entry and he may even be wrong about the stun gun (I'm not really buying the stun gun myself), still doesn't mean it wasn't an intruder. Thomas thinks it's Patsy, Kolar, apparently Burke. I'll submit that none of these guys know exactly what went down that night. Incidentally, you don't get to have it both ways. You don't get to say that JR is some criminal mastermind who concocted this elaborate RN in which every paragraph is fraught with meaning to carry out he's evil plan, who then does something as mindless as leave the note on the stairs hoping and praying Patsy comes to him with it and doesn't call the cops. In fact since he's being an evil genius here, as you claim, he most certainly would have disabled the phone so she couldn't dial out. And, like I said, when she got up, and you can bet he's awake, he's going to follow her downstairs when she finds that note and read it with her and instruct her not to call the police. Like I said, he's not letting her out of his sight. He's written this very complex note to basically cover his ass and then, what, cavalierly leaves it on the stairs and waits to see what happens? Bullshit, no way. Yeah, I'll probably read Kolar's book just to see what he says. I can let you know what I think of it. I'm guessing you contacted him. If so, what did he think of your "solution"

"It's obvious that you've got an answer for everything." If I didn't you'd claim there was a hole in my theory.

I pride myself on having covered every issue and answered every question posed to me. And I feel confident I'm right because in every case I've been able to come up with a reasonable response. I admit that the notion that John did everything on his own seems to contradict some things people see as facts. But when you look closely you see they aren't facts at all. I admit also that I've speculated about certain aspects of the case, but when it comes to the meaning of something like that "ransom" note all anyone can do is speculate.

"It's not up to me to prove exactly how it all went down because I don't specifically know who this unknown entity is and, unless he's caught, it can never be known."

Then, under such circumstances, you should be willing to admit he might not exist at all. And if you are unwilling to admit that, then you need to prove an intruder had to have been present. You have just as much burden of proof in that respect as I do.

"I'm just speculating."

No you're not. You're insisting an intruder had to have murdered JonBenet and that neither of her parents could have.

"You, on the other hand believe it was JR, so you better have all your i's dotted and t's crossed to prove that one." That's why this blog exists, to dot all the i's and cross all the t's.

"Obviously, they're not seeing what you're seeing because I've never seen a "solution" such as yours offered by any of the lead investigators." That, imo, is why this case has never been solved. Because the investigators have been looking in the wrong direction ever since John was "ruled out." What I've been trying to do is get them to rule him back in again, even hypothetically, and rethink the case on that basis.

And by the way, the great majority in LE reject the intruder theory, so you won't get any more comfort from that source than I have. And as we now know, the Grand Jury voted to indict the Ramseys, so they didn't buy the intruder either.

As far as John disconnecting the phone, etc., once again you are assuming John would have thought like you and done what you think you would have done. I see no reason to make such an assumption. The fact is that no intruder would have had a reason to write such a note in the first place. A kidnapper would have brought his note with him (if he thought he needed one, which he really didn't). And an intruder trying to collect a ransom without bothering to actually abduct his victim, need not have written a note at all, as he could easily have phoned the Ramsey's first thing in the morning. No one hiding in that house would have needed or wanted to take all that time to write such a long and detailed message. That, to me sounds far more unlikely, than John trusting Patsy not to call the cops.

"Yeah, I'll probably read Kolar's book just to see what he says. I can let you know what I think of it. I'm guessing you contacted him. If so, what did he think of your "solution""

I did contact him and sent him a link to the blog. He got back to me thanking me for my interest in his book. But he never answered any of my questions, such as "why didn't you even consider the possibility that John could have killed JBR rather than Burke?" And never got back to me with any comments on anything in the blog. I've contacted others in Boulder LE and none have ever responded, though I suspect some have commented here anonymously.

Thanks for responding. I've been reading through your posts and it's all great stuff...surprised I didn't find it sooner. But I've never joined any of the websleuth sites, etc. I've read the book by Thomas, The one by the Ramseys, and honestly I didn't read the one by Schiller but I've seen the movie he directed about the case. I've read various things over the internet. So I'm pretty well informed. I revisit the case every 6 mos or so which I'm doing now. I respect the fact that everyone has an opinion on the case. But here's what I think happened, mind you I can't prove any of it:

1. Someone gained entry to that house by either key, door left unlocked or just possibly jimmied a lock. Frankly, the basement entrance seems too elaborate for me. I did read your post about that window. I'm not entirely ruling it out but it is rather small. It does bring to mind the case of Tim Spencer, a black serial killer who gained entry to houses through really small windows, etc.

2. The Ramseys are not at home so this person cases the house and hides in the basement. The person's intention is to abduct JB. 2 possibilities on the RN, 1: While waiting for the Ramseys to get home he simply composes this note while waiting. He's got time on his hands which may be why it drones on and on and is often repetitive. The person is writing the note to mislead authorities into believing a foreign entity took JB. The individual isn't interested in the actual money. OR 2: The note was brought in advance and transcribed. The RN itself has a shaky quality to it. The person may have been wearing gloves while writing it, afraid of leaving prints on the pen. Try writing with gloves on, it's not so easy especially winter gloves.

3. After the Ramseys returned, perp leaves note on stairs, creeps into her room and grabs her, probably puts a hand over her mouth and quickly scoots back down to his hideaway. Why? because he has to further restrain her before leaving with her. He can't just run directly from her room out into the cold night.

4. Initially when he first went into her room he may have hit her with something...but it didn't bleed. That would explain the bruise. Or he hit her while in the basement. At any rate he took the time to fashion an elaborate garrote and strangle her with it. I've never heard of a parent garroting a child and, while it is true that parents have done sick things to their kids, that garrote would be a sadist's dream. If JR killed her he could've simply grabbed a piece of rope, fabric whatever to strangle her with. The garrote is very telling. That's an elaborate murder device and speaks volumes to the type of killer here, I think. Again, Tim Spencer comes to mind, he used to bind his victims in elaborate ways. Tim was executed in '94, not saying he's the guy.

5. As to why the perp killed her at all? Dunno. Maybe he decided to torture her a bit and went too far. Many possibilities here, I wasn't there. She's dead so he leaves the body behind. the note is where he left it and he simply leaves, evidently locking the door behind. Why lock the door? Who knows, but cops often see criminals doing things that make no sense. As for the lack of evidence, well the killer wore gloves. Would there be any sign of struggle, not really because she's just a little 6 yr old who was asleep. One could make the argument that there were no wet footprints found in the house. It was a cold night and the ground was hard. If his shoes got wet, they had plenty of time to dry off before the crime. Not to mention that people were coming and going so much during the day it's a wonder the police had any workable evidence at all. In cases of stranger murders and abduction cops often find very little to go on. You seem to find the lack of evidence a big deal. I don't. It sometimes happens that way. As for the grand jury evidence to indict, I'd be willing to bet they thought Patsy was the guilty party, not JR. Doesn't matter because the DA didn't believe they had a prosecutable case. And as far as I'm concerned, they didn't.

No, he didn't jimmy the lock. That would have left traces on the lock and they never found any. And if he had a key or a door had been left open it's hard to understand why all the doors were locked when the police checked them.

If his intention was abduction, he would have brought a note with him, already printed on a machine that couldn't be traced to him. He would have actually carried out his abduction. And the note would not have instructed John to wait until the following morning, but to expect a call THAT morning. A real kidnapper would have had no reason to wait so long for his payoff. After all his victims might panic and call the cops despite all the warnings. If something had gone wrong he would NOT have left a possibly incriminating note for no reason. And he would not have hidden the body. Unless you're following the scenario I provided in my new improved intruder theory, but apparently you don't see that possibility.

Your scenario leaves way too many loose ends.

And I don't see the point of bringing a note and then taking the time and trouble to transcribe it by hand. Makes no sense at all.

JBR wasn't really garotted. It was a simple ligature strangulation with the aid of an attached stick. My guess is that John needed to make sure she was dead but was reluctant to strangle her by hand because he didn't want to touch her. Note that the head blow also avoided touching. He probably struck her from behind, so he didn't even have to look her in the eye.

Nah, I've read of cases where perps have jimmied locks and left no trace of it. It happens. I don't know why the door was locked. But I wouldn't rule out an intruder because of it. Like I said the note may have been written while in the house waiting, on the Ramsey stationary. This person wasn't a real kidnapper. The contents of the RN itself speak more to the internal working of the perp's mind than anything else. I would argue that, unless the perp tells us, we'll never understand the full meaning of that note. If they brought a note with them, the only reason to transcribe it is because they thought their copy could be traced back to them. Or another definite possibility is that the perp decided to write the new note because they wanted to change the contents of theirs. One thing I'm sure of is that a perp would not write the note after JBR was killed. It's inconceivable to me that someone would stick around and compose a 3 page note after that. So it had to have been written before. The body was simply found where the perp was hiding. I'm calling it a garroting because it wasn't a typical strangulation. The perp had to fashion this device and strangle JBR by twisting it repeatedly. I don't see any family member doing this. It's too elaborate and in the hundreds of cases I've read about I've never heard of a parent doing something like this. It's something a sexual sadist would use. After all if JR wanted to kill JBR or finish her off as you say why not just grab a rope and strangle her. He wouldn't have to touch her. Instead he fashions this garrote literally twisting the life out of her? No, I'm not buying that at all. The problem with your thinking is that you allow no margin for what I would call an unknown variable. In other words since the doors were are all locked it couldn't be an intruder because an intruder wouldn't take the time to lock the door. I would argue that you don't know what is going through the perp's mind. There may also have been doors in the home that lock automatically when you close the door. The kind where you can't turn the knob from the outside. If there are loose ends in my scenario it is simply because we don't know exactly what this person did that night and we will never know unless he's caught.

Not bad, Pete. You'd make a good defense lawyer. I don't find your scenario plausible but it might serve as a reasonable doubt defense. If I were the prosecutor, however, I would make the distinction between doubt per se and reasonable doubt.

Sure, it's possible someone could have jimmied the lock without leaving any signs of that. It's possible he had a key. It's possible he could have locked the door out of force of habit, or that it locked itself. It's possible that the suitcase propped against the window got there for some unknown reason unrelated to the case. Same with the packing peanuts strewn over the floor.

It's possible he could have spent hours in that house without leaving any sign, any mud tracked in, any footprints or fingerprints, no open drawers. It's possible he could have left without leaving any footprints on the lawn, by following the pavement. It's possible he didn't steal anything because he was afraid it could be traced to him.

It's possible he could have taken his time writing that long note before the Ramseys returned. It's possible he wasn't really interested in collecting a ransom, so wasn't worried about the timing of the delivery. It's possible that he didn't take his victim because he was concerned he might be seen as he left the house with her. It's possible he didn't worry about his handwriting being traced to him because his existence was unknown to the Ramseys, so he would not have been a suspect. It's possible the victim changed her panties in the middle of the night and was too tired to notice they were the wrong size. It's possible the body was found in the windowless room simply because that's where he had been hiding.

Each of these things may seem unlikely but strictly speaking, each IS possible. But taken together, a long string of unlikely possibilities, put together by a defense lawyer whose primary concern would be keeping his client from the chair, sorry that that is not convincing. It reads more like a list of red herrings than an actual kidnapping/murder scenario. Sure, each of these possibilities might have happened, but all these unlikely events happening during the same incident? Sorry, while strictly speaking it could generate some sort of doubt, because after all each taken separately is possible, I don't see it as an effective reasonable doubt defense. Because the conjunction of so many unlikely events is UNreasonable. But a jury might buy it. So maybe if you were the defense lawyer it might work for you.

Problem is, even if a jury were willing to buy your scenario on the basis of reasonable doubt, all you'd have demonstrated is the POSSIBILITY of an intruder. That's not enough to get John off the hook. It doesn't explain all the hedging and outright lies in his testimony during the two police interviews. It doesn't explain why he'd have changed his mind about the doors being locked; why he'd have made a big deal about the Butler door when he knew very well it had been locked; why he later claimed he'd seen the basement window open, but in fact told no one about that the morning after the crime; why he clearly concocted a fabricated story about breaking that window the previous summer; why he was unable to recall, on two separate occasions, months apart, whether that window had ever been repaired -- etc.

And finally, why his handwriting so strongly resembles that of the ransom note, to the point that no one has ever been able to separate out the exemplars in the display I designed. (see http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/some-handwriting-evidence.html)

As I see it, all it would take to nail John would be for the DA's office to re-examine the decision that ruled him out. Interview these "experts" one by one, to see if some influenced others (as I suspect). Have them explain their methodology and their justification for ruling him out. Get outside examiners to go over the same exemplars the original group studied. And include the court document that I suspect was never given to them, because the resemblances to that are truly stunning.

Funny, Dad's always telling me I'd make a good lawyer. But that's besides the point, lol. Of course my scenario is not to defend JR. I don't believe he or Patsy had anything to do with this crime. And I'm not some devoted Ramsey supporter. When the case first broke I figured they were somehow involved. I noticed you didn't comment on the garrote. I don't believe either were capable of doing that. You obviously have no problem with JR doing that. It seems exceedingly bizarre to me. Oh and BTW as far as facts go, facts are open to interpretation. As far as JR's exemplar (assuming it's really his), I did a blow up side by side comparison with the RN and frankly I think it's a poor match. For instance the letter f in the exemplar is totally different from that in the RN. JR's f's have a hook on top and the cross beam is far down. Totally unlike those of the RN. I've already commented on the fact that many (but not all) of the small t's in the RN have hooks on the bottom. These aren't present in the exemplar. No, that bit of exemplar is not convincing but I admit that it's not a lot to go on. What I would like to see is a copy of JR's handwriting done using the same felt pen as the note. Which brings me to Patsy's samples. Again I did a side by side of hers and the note. The sample I looked at is the one she composed with, I believe, a felt pen. This is the best sample because the content is the same and so is the pen. The important thing in document analysis is to focus on strong dissimilarities first not similarities. For instance in both the RN and PR's sample, the crossbeam on the small t is part of the small e. I do that to. I think most armchair detectives look for these similarities and come to wrong conclusions. I would advise any of them to analyze their own handwriting and they'd probably be shocked by the number of similarities to the RN. I think both you and I can agree that whoever wrote that note, intruder or Ramsey, took time thinking about it. It's not a rush job. However, I see nothing about it that leads me to believe that the author is trying to mask their normal writing style. The note is relatively well centered. If I was trying to mask my handwriting I would probably try to write words at angles, misspell a bunch, etc. And yet only a couple of words are misspelled, even I get possession wrong sometimes and I won spelling bees as a kid! The note is shakier starting out and then levels off. That could be because the writer was nervous and then calmed down some. When looking at Patsy's exemplar one thing immediately stands out, the small a. In the RN it is written just like it appears here in this font throughout the whole document. Her exemplar includes that style, a more traditional small a, and a capital A! 3 types of A's. Either she's being deceptive with the exemplar, which would make her one cool cookie, or I'd say that alone would be enough to eliminate her. I'd like to see an old printed card or something that had those 3 characteristics on it. That would completely eliminate her IMO.

I did comment on the garotte, you missed it. First of all it's not really a garotte, but simply a ligature strangulation device with a stick attached to facilitate tightening. Many murder victims have been strangled, even by "loved" ones, so I see no problem there.

As far as the handwriting is concerned, we would certainly expect poor matches where deception is obviously intended. What strikes me are the many points where we find very close matches nevertheless, as illustrated by the graphic in which I mixed up the two and challenged people to identify which is which. Now if this were given to the "experts" who ruled John out and they were unable to tell which was which, then I would certainly question their decision to rule him out. I'm not saying my analysis proves John wrote it, but as I see things, it certainly demonstrates that he should never have been ruled out.

To give you an idea of how a resourceful writer might contrive to disguise his hand, I'll send you to this post: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/ruled-out-part-3-courier-new.html

What I discovered was evidence that John could have initially written the note on his laptop, and then traced it directly from the computer display. Since this type of laptop can be flattened out, tracing would not have been difficult. By using a word processing font as a model he would have been able to disguise many of the letters in the note.

It's also occurred to me that John could have prepared the note in advance rather than writing it after the murder. (I agree with you that the note shows little sign of panic.) Since his plan would have involved destroying the note before the police ever laid eyes on it (claiming the "kidnappers" wanted it returned), he may not have worried much about whether professional doc examiners would ever get their hands on it. All he needed was to fool Patsy, so in his mind hand-copying a computer font might have been sufficient.

I admit that it's hard to imagine him putting such a long complicated note together after having killed his daughter, so I think we have to at least consider the possibility he could have premeditated the whole thing and wrote the note beforehand. On the other hand, she was probably killed fairly soon after bedtime and if so he had the entire night ahead of him, to pull himself together and do what had to be done.

I see no reason at all to suspect Patsy of writing the note. You'll find some comparisons of her exemplars and the note in two of my most recent posts.

With regards to using a laptop, about the only thing I can say about that is, playing devil's advocate here, it would serve as a template for the RN and would explain why there are so few errors. There are also very few typos. I believe there are only 2-business (spelled bussiness) and possession (posession). Possession is a commonly misspelled word, business less so. I don't believe those words were misspelled on purpose It makes no sense because the rest of the document is free of typos and a fancy word like attache is spelled correctly complete with accent over the e. One would think JR, being a businessman could spell business correctly. Perhaps spell check was turned off! I think we can both agree that whoever wrote the note was fairly literate. And we can agree that whoever wrote the note was something of a movie buff. The grow a brain bit is too close to the movie Speed. And the bit about the stray dog is close to the line from Dirty Harry.

Yes, continuing with your theory JR would only have to fool Patsy and keep her from calling the cops. Then, of course, he'd have to get her and BR out of the house. At the very least he'd have to get JBR's body from the basement to the trunk of his car. He'd also have to scare the crap out of PR enough so that she wouldn't blab to anybody that JBR has been kidnapped. Then of course, according to your theory, JR would have to go to the bank, withdraw the cash, dump the cash and body. I submit that if JR concocted this plan and wrote the note BEFORE JBR was killed it's a terrible one. After all he has to get rid of that note before the cops are involved. He doesn't know for sure they can't connect him to it. And, of course, at some point the cops are going to get involved because JBR isn't coming home. He'd have a very tough sell with all of this with the cops. Going it alone, etc and he'd have to explain what happened to the note. He'd have to account for his movements that day, where he went to drop off the cash, etc. If the murder was premeditated he would've surely been able come up with something better than what's in the RN. At the very least he would've included something like "bring this note with you". This would've at least explained the missing note. No, using your theory, that RN was definitely written after JBR was already dead.

But here are some big problems. We don't know when JBR was killed. I believe the family retired around 10 or 10:30. If JR killed JBR either intentionally or otherwise it didn't happen right away. John has to give Patsy sufficient time to fall asleep before he gets up and creeps into JBR's room. Let's say the earliest he can do this is around midnight. Whether he kills her accidentally or intentionally nobody knows but somehow she ends up in the room in the basement. (I've always thought that that room was chosen because it is the most insulated, no windows, etc) Let's say it's 1 o'clock at the latest. That gives him a good 4 hours to get it all worked out. A pretty good amount of time. JR's state of mind would be quite different depending on what his intention was. If JBR's death was accidental he'd be in full on panic mode. I ruled out premeditation because, like I said, that note does not dovetail with a premeditated plan. If he was forced to kill her as you claim, because she was going to tell about supposed sexual abuse etc, I believe he'd be an emotional wreck after that ordeal. So what to do? More>>>

One could make the argument that he could simply get rid of the body at 1, 2, or 3AM. There is always the slim possibility that a neighbor might see him come and go but chances are good nobody would and it seems to me far less risky than this crazy plan hes' trying to concoct. Or why leave the body in the basement at all? His intention is to get rid of it. Why not at least put the body in the trunk right now. That's one less step he has to worry about.

JR and his family were getting ready to visit with relatives that morning and they were all getting up very early, around 6, so I think we can safely say this killing was not premeditated. Unless he's a complete idiot, this is hardly the day for a premeditated murder. So, for whatever reason he's forced to kill her. He's got a bit of time but he's got to think. He's afraid to move the body now so he's got to explain her absence to fool Patsy. He comes up with the idea of a ransom note. For a man who's just been forced to kill his daughter he's exhibiting amazing lucidity coming up with this quite sophisticated albeit, flawed plan and note. After all he's even able to throw in movie references and such! If the intent of the note is just to fool PR why throw a nutty figure in there like $118,000? Why not use a round figure like $100,000...a figure normal kidnappers would use. If he chose that figure because it matched his bonus, why would Patsy care that they wanted that amount. If anything it would make her curious, she'd be wondering how the foreign kidnappers knew what his bonus was. Makes zero sense.

Since the note is just to fool Patsy, and I've already stated this, all the extra junk in that note makes little sense. The bit about the Foreign faction. Patsy could care less if it's a foreign faction or not. The stuff about electronic scanning devices, size of the attache, etc adds nothing. He could've trimmed the note down by at least a half and had the same effect on her. Since he would be very emotionally distraught I don't believe he would have had the presence of mind to be transcribing things from a laptop. I'm not buying that. One could make the argument that the missing pages were a whole bunch of trial ones that were disposed of, but then why leave the couple that were still in the pad? And what's with the Victory-SBTC? What purpose does that serve?

What I wanted you to address with the garrote, or tourniquet if you prefer, is the fact that this was used to kill JBR. The point I was making is that I don't see JR or PR fashioning this, what I can only describe as a torture device, to kill JBR. Yes parents have strangled their kids with their hands or a rope tied around their necks but I've never heard of a sophisticated knotted tourniquet used. It's very unique. Some have theorized that this was staging on the part of the Ramseys to make it seem like an intruder. I would argue that the police wouldn't care one way or the other how a supposed intruder strangled JBR.

Once again, Pete, you are projecting your own thought process onto John. What doesn't work for you might work for him. And by the way, assuming John was planning to destroy the note, which I think likely, it also seems likely he'd have prepared a copy to give to the police, after he'd called them the following day. And it would also have been a good idea to invite at least one friend over, both to pick up Patsy and Burke AND read the note. That friend would then become a witness to its contents. So the note wouldn't be just to fool Patsy, but also to account for the police not being called at first, and to provide a reason for him being spotted near the place where the body would later be found. He would claim he'd been delivering the ransom.

As far as all the "unnecessary" verbiage, once again, it may seem unnecessary to you, but to me not at all. Because he needed to make it sound authentic, like the kind of thing some nutcase might write.

I think the plan implied in the note is an excellent plan so I have no problem with it being written ahead of time, though I can't be sure when he wrote it. It's very methodically thought out, and tracing it would have taken time and patience, so it makes sense that it could have been prepared in advance, perhaps days in advance.

"I submit that if JR concocted this plan and wrote the note BEFORE JBR was killed it's a terrible one. After all he has to get rid of that note before the cops are involved. He doesn't know for sure they can't connect him to it. And, of course, at some point the cops are going to get involved because JBR isn't coming home. He'd have a very tough sell with all of this with the cops."

No, not at all. If Patsy had gone along and not called the cops, then the time the cops were called would have been under his control. He'd have called them only after he'd dumped the body and destroyed the note. Once the note is gone there is no way for them to connect him to it. They would certainly be suspicious, but there would have been NO evidence of an inside job. And sure, at some point the cops are going to get involved, but only after he calls them. He'd have been in total control.

On the other hand, attempting to dump the body that same night, before Patsy got up, would have been tremendously risky. If he or is car had been spotted, he'd have had no explanation for driving around in the middle of the night like that. And the garage door opening or the car starting could have awakened Patsy or Burke. By setting up the ransom delivery for the following night, he gave himself the perfect reason to be driving around at some remote spot -- he could claim he was delivering the ransom, at the kidnapper's request.

Sure the police might have suspected him, but if all had gone according to plan, they'd have nothing. All the evidence would have been removed from the house and destroyed, and the body would have been dumped in that remote spot. There would have been no handwriting to compare with his. No one would know the note had been written on his own notepad, with his own pen.

As far as the "garotte" is concerned, I don't see anything all that unusual. If he felt the need to make sure she was dead, then strangulation would have made sense. If he was reluctant to lay his hands on her throat, then a ligature would have made sense. The stick would just have been a handy device to make strangulation easier. While it's easy to let your imagination go wild, and assume she was tortured, that's not necessarily the case at all. The "garotte" would simply have made it easier for him to do what he felt he had to do.

The problem I see with writing the note ahead of time is that there are two Co-causes of death.

Before I go further, I have no problem with the notion that the RN might have been composed on a laptop, printed, then copied by hand. I just don't think it's very likely it was composed before the murder. Here's why-

Two injuries, one not certain to cause death, and the other absolutely certain to cause death. If it were premeditated, the killer would go for the method that offers certainty. Why then, the blow to the head? Particularly when the blow to the head caused an injury not visible, thus not apparently a COD until autopsy.

It seems likely to me that the blow to the head was an unintended event -e.g. not planned in advance. It seems an unlikely choice of method. The garrotte would be enough, by itself, to cause death. Though there is disagreement by the "experts" I tend to think the blow to the head came first. Why bother after or during asphyxiation?

And let's acknowledge that the AR is simply being "professional". What I mean is that technically the brain injury might have caused death just prior to asphyxiation by the "garrotte", so the AR has to read that there were two causes in conjunction. But really, we may as well say she died of asphyxiation. We know from the petechiae that she was asphyxiated (e.g. still alive, despite the blow to the head) IMO the body probably still showed signs of life, hence the strangulation.

So, the point is, why two causes of death when one (strangulation) is both sufficient and certain? Were it premeditated there would more likely be one cause, I'd think. If you'll pardon the word choice, two methods is overkill.

Also who could foresee that such a severe blow to the head would not break the scalp? Contemplating it as a method of killing one would assume a good deal of blood. Does one want the clean up necessary with a bloody COD?

I suspect then that the murder wasn't planned ahead of time. Thus, the RN was not written that morning when JR was at the airport, or a few days before that.

I will admit that it seems well thought out, mostly. It gives JR everything needed to carry out the plan. In that respect it indicates prior planning.

I think JR was very quick witted. He'd have a few hours to assemble a plan and write a note that would allow him to carry out the plan.

Assuming he had good typing skills, being a computer guy, he might well be able to type faster than he could write, he could edit easily, and then print out and trace the RN. I've never used anything but a desktop, so I wonder if it would be possible to place the note paper directly on the screen and trace it? That would eliminate the need to get rid of the print out.

I admit I'm on the fence regarding the possibility of premeditation. There was certainly plenty of time after the murder for John to put that note together. And what you've written about the two causes of death certainly makes sense.

However: The maglite could have been deliberately chosen specifically because the hard rubber was unlikely to break the skin and cause bleeding. His plan could have involved using it to knock her out first from behind, so she wouldn't feel any pain, or ever know who attacked her, and then strangling her to finish off the job, making sure she was dead.

The more I really think about this case, and I haven't looked at it in about a year, the more I'm convinced that the note was written before the murder. Most likely days before if not longer. It's too well thought out. It appears to have every kidnapping cliche in it. One could reference known kidnapping letters, movie references and the kind of stuff you'd see in crime TV shows and the like in that note. It's like the killer put in everything he could think of about kidnapping into it. I don't see the killer, intruder or Ramsey, coming up with all these elements after the murder. Especially, operating under severe duress as they would be.

If the note was written beforehand than we can fine tune this a whole lot better. First of all that eliminates Burke completely, because that theory would mean the note was written after the crime to cover Burke's murder. Since the note was written BEFORE the murder that virtually eliminates PR and JR working together, I don't see the two of them premeditating the death of JBR. So that leaves only 3 possibilities, PR operating alone, JR alone, or Intruder.

The FBI analysts always said the note was written by a female, based on some of the caring language found in it. I would argue that the general content, movie cliches, etc. that inspire it are decidedly masculine. I also can't see a female strangling their child that way with a tourniquet, etc. I can see a disturbed male offender doing it though.

So that leaves 2 perps, JR or Intruder. Using your scenario it would have to follow like this: John is thinking about killing JBR. He's come up with a kidnapping scheme to cover his ass. He composes a note, most likely on his PC. Having a printed copy floating around is dangerous, much easier to hide it in a computer file. He's planning to murder her at his own leisure and get rid of the body when nobody is around but, on this particular night, something goes horribly wrong and he's forced to kill her. He has to execute his plan, it's not going the way it's supposed to though. But he does have the note ready so he copies it's content either from the PC or possibly from a printed copy. He's only doing this to fool Patsy. Like I've already stated earlier, I see no attempt at masking of the perp's handwriting in that note. Even if JR was transcribing it from a printed copy, it looks like he simply copied it out with no evidence of deception. Patsy finds the note where he left it and calls 911. There's been some debate over whether Patsy read through the whole note or just skimmed it before calling the police. Either way she would surely have recognized John's handwriting, possibly not until she scrutinized the not after calling the cops. But then that would mean she's part of the cover-up. And I've dismissed that for many reasons.

"The more I really think about this case, and I haven't looked at it in about a year, the more I'm convinced that the note was written before the murder."

I tend to agree. There seems to be a lot of pre-planning that went into it. But not necessarily, because John would probably have had several hours after the murder to plan and write it.

"If the note was written beforehand than we can fine tune this a whole lot better."

Excellent point. But of course you must realize it makes an intruder theory even more unlikely. Someone who spent so much time planning and writing would certainly have arrived with his note already with him. I see no reason to take the time and trouble to make a hand printed copy on a Ramsey notepad after entering the house. Of course one could argue that the perp lifted the notepad from the Ramsey home ahead of time, but the only reason for doing that would have been to frame either John or Patsy. However, there is no sign of that, clearly no attempt to make it look like the writing of either of them. As you say, John was "ruled out" entirely. But Patsy was also found to be "unlikely" by the same group of examiners. I found some striking similarities with John, but as you noted there are also many dissimilarities. So I see no sign of deliberate forgery.

"Since the note was written BEFORE the murder that virtually eliminates PR and JR working together, I don't see the two of them premeditating the death of JBR. So that leaves only 3 possibilities, PR operating alone, JR alone, or Intruder."

Again, good point. But no I don't see the possibility of an intruder if it were written beforehand. It would be either John or Patsy, according to your reasoning. And I see no reason for Patsy to premeditate the murder of a child that was so important to her. If John had been abusing JonBenet, however, and she was threatening to "tell," that's a different story.

"He's planning to murder her at his own leisure and get rid of the body when nobody is around but, on this particular night, something goes horribly wrong and he's forced to kill her. He has to execute his plan, it's not going the way it's supposed to though."

I don't see that at all. If John composed that note ahead of time, it would have been as part of a carefully thought out plan. And as I've pointed out in my analysis, the note was in fact designed to enable him to kill her and make it look like a kidnapping. So I don't think anything went wrong until Patsy unexpectedly called 911.

"But he does [not?] have the note ready so he copies it's content either from the PC or possibly from a printed copy." I see what you're getting at, but I think it more likely that he would have prepared the hand-printed copy ahead of time and would have been ready that night. They were planning a trip to visit family the next morning, and that would have made it really impossible for him to carry out his plan. Too many people around, too much that would have been unpredictable.

continued from my last comment:The question, of course, is: why would he have felt a hand printed copy was safer than a computer printed one? And here we can only speculate. My guess is that he could have planned and written the note while he was at the airport for so long on Xmas day. The decision might have been made shortly before that, and he would have realized there was no time to wait, because JonBenet would be visiting with her half brother and sister the next day, and might easily spill the beans to them. So, if there was no printer available at the airport, he would have had no choice but to hand print the note. He certainly wouldn't have wanted to print it on his own printer, either at the office or at home, because as a computer professional he would know how easy it is to trace printed copy to the machine it was printed on.

I do definitely think he went to some trouble to disguise his hand, that seems obvious from the odd look of so many of the letters. And it also seems likely, as I think I've demonstrated, that he would have copied a computer font, also as a way of disguising the note. And no, I don't think Patsy would have recognized it. She wasn't a detective, she was a housewife, and would have had no reason to suspect John in any case.

If the note was written on a computer beforehand, wouldn't this mean it was saved at some point? And if it was saved, wouldn't it then be retrieveable...even if it had been deleted? Were JR's computers seized and searched? They must have been!

First of all, it need not have been saved. If he didn't save it, it wouldn't have been saved. Of course a program such as MS Word automatically saves backups as you type, but that feature can be turned off.

Secondly, when they searched his computer they were looking for porn. I'd be very surprised if they were looking for the ransom note.

But in any case I very much doubt John would have left a copy of that note on his computer after copying it with pen and ink. If it hadn't been saved then it would simply have disappeared once the computer was turned off.

Right, but it sounds like you and Pete are considering that the note was written some time in advance. Days perhaps. I doubt John would keep a document of that nature open on his computer for any length of time. He may lose it if the computer crashed, as they were wont to do in those days, or someone might discover it. Any nature of things might have happened, so it just seems a bit too risky to keep such a damning artefact on his laptop.I've agreed with pretty much everything you've written so far, but the note being written before the murder just leaves me cold for some reason. Thanks,

Since I've concluded that this crime was premeditated, one could argue why JR would write a RN at all.? Why not just kill JBR, get rid of the body and let the police sort it out. Also, since I believe the note was written in advance, what would be the point of trying to fool Patsy with all the extra garbage in it. He would've concocted the note to satisfy the cops, not scare PR. All he would need to do then is kill JBR print a simple note, not from his home PC of course, and drop it in the mail. But that's not what he's done, he's created this elaborate note. No matter how you look at it, it doesn't make any sense. I've also pointed out strong dissimilarities in JR's exemplar and the note. But ultimately, for me it's all academic anyway. There was no dissension amongst the doc examiners. Too me this is ironclad. You can argue it's more art than science. That may be true but I would argue that it's a definite acquired skill. The cumulative effect of their findings is extremely significant. He didn't write the note. Whether you think one examiner influenced another is pure speculation on your part and should be marginalized. The fact that we don't have access to JR's exemplars is unfortunate, but that's the way the legal system works.

I also do not believe JBR was being sexually abused. When dealing with a case like this it's important to not lose site of the primary source material. Many get caught up in all the he said, she said claptrap. JBR's pediatrician, who'd been seeing her for several years, clearly stated that he saw no evidence of sexual abuse. That should've been the end of it. But it wasn't. Doctors, looking at autopsy photos, said they saw evidence of abuse. Others explained it away. Their findings, both sides, should be marginalized. Also, by everybody's' account JBR seemed to be a happy, well adjusted little kid. Not the behavior you would see if she were being abused. It's true she had problems with bed wetting and soiling but this is not very uncommon.

I'm also not a big fan of all these staged scenarios that are about. JR staged this or PR staged that is so much claptrap. One would think the Ramseys are master criminals to read all these silly staged scenarios. Virtually all staged crime scenes are solved by the cops. Even the inept Boulder PD would've seen right through them.

Which leaves only one solution, Intruder. I do agree with you that an intruder would've brought a typewritten note with them. It's my belief the note was transcribed onto the notepad because the perp was afraid of fingerprints left on their copy. Since the perp has no intention of being caught he is perfectly content with leaving his handwriting about. As to whether this was a kidnapping gone wrong or the note was left to make it look like a kidnapping, we just don't know. Since JBR was killed the question remains as to why a note would be left behind. It's quite possible it was left on the stairs before grabbing JBR and the perp, in his panic, forgot to take it. It's also just possible, with the body hidden in the basement, the perp left the note thinking he could still execute a ransom before the body was discovered. But, as we know the cops showed up early, and that would've thwarted the plan.

There's a whole second section to that post which you may not have noticed...I put it in 2 parts. If you read the second part you'll see that I stated that the intruder would've brought a, most likely typewritten, note with him and then copied it's contents to the pad. Since I'm now pretty certain that the note was written beforehand I agree that an intruder wouldn't have created that note while sitting around waiting. It's too well thought out. I'll respond to everything after you look at the second half. I apologize that it's so long, it's just that the case is quite complex, no matter which theory you believe.

"Since I've concluded that this crime was premeditated, one could argue why JR would write a RN at all.? Why not just kill JBR, get rid of the body and let the police sort it out."

There was no way for him to get rid of the body without the risk of being spotted in transit. And what about Patsy? What if she'd noticed he was gone and the car was gone? It was the NOTE and the plan behind it that would have made it possible for him to 1. get Patsy and Burke out of the house, because he was the one the kidnappers wanted to deal with and it would be too dangerous for them to be around; 2. dump the body and all the other evidence under the pretext of delivering the ransom. So, if his car had been spotted, he could claim he was only following the directions in the note. This was a carefully thought out plan, and it is clearly implied in the note. Even the timing of the kidnapper's call is perfectly in tune with his plan, since he'd have needed lots of time to complete his window staging, get to the bank, collect the money, go back home, get the body in the trunk and drive to some remote spot under cover of darkness the following night.

"All he would need to do then is kill JBR print a simple note, not from his home PC of course, and drop it in the mail." Say what? And when was this supposed to happen? And what would Patsy have done with her daughter missing, wait for the next mail delivery?

"There was no dissension amongst the doc examiners. Too me this is ironclad."

But it was also ironclad to almost every single investigator that there was no intruder. Lou Smit drove everyone crazy because his theories made no sense and were based on either pure speculation, refusal to consider all the evidence, or deliberate deception. Read Kolar's book if you doubt my word. If we go by what was "ironclad" then we are both wrong. Maybe no one did it.

It's true that just about everyone following this case will agree with you that John could not have written the note. This has always been the major stumbling block to acceptance of my theory, and I have to live with that. But when I consider all other alternatives, nothing makes sense except John as sole perpetrator. Something has to give. And as I see it, the weak link is that decision to rule him out, which had a huge effect on the investigation from that point on. It was an opinion, it is not real evidence. Forensic document examination is NOT science, and yes, it's possible that some of these "experts" influenced the others.

Ruling out a prime suspect is extremely unusual and in order to do so there must be absolutely iron clad evidence that he could not have written it. And sorry but I can't imagine what that evidence could have been. So to me that whole aspect of the investigation seems pretty hinky. I'd feel better if their report had been made public, but it hasn't so I'm sorry, but imo they got it wrong. Because nothing else fits. And if you read enough in this blog you'll understand why. If you read with an open mind, that is. If you've already made up your mind, that's different.

"Which leaves only one solution, Intruder." That's not a solution. Because intruder makes no sense, as I've demonstrated over and over again. Read Kolar's book if you want more evidence on that score.

"It's my belief the note was transcribed onto the notepad because the perp was afraid of fingerprints left on their copy."

Sorry, but that won't wash. If he was afraid of prints he could have printed a fresh copy and handled it with gloves. It makes no sense at all for him to recopy the note while in the house and certainly makes no sense for him to do it by hand.

Well look at it this way, you're asking us to jump through some giant hurtles to accept your theory. 1. We have to sideline the document examiners, at least 6 I believe. Just dismiss their findings outright. Evidently you can do that, I can't. 2. We have to accept that JR is some criminal mastermind, what with the note, the staging and god knows what else. 3. We pretty much have to accept that JBR was being sexually abused. I don't believe she was. Evidently, you've sidelined her pediatrician's statement, I haven't. 4. By anybody's account JR was nothing but a loving father to his kids. Now we have to accept he's some evil killer. Ad nauseum.

"Sorry, but that won't wash. If he was afraid of prints he could have printed a fresh copy and handled it with gloves. It makes no sense at all for him to recopy the note while in the house and certainly makes no sense for him to do it by hand."

But you're not thinking outside the box. Maybe this person arrived on scene with a typewritten note, took off their gloves and accidentally touched it. What are they going to do now, go back home and type up another? Get on the Ramseys computer and type it up? No they transcribe it. Maybe the note was damaged or something and they felt the need to rewrite it. And you don't know for certain that they didn't just bring a handwritten copy that they handled carefully. You assume it has to be typewritten. I'll be damned if I know how you can be so sure of yourself. You aren't inside the perp's head and neither am I. As for what's logical or illogical, as I've already stated, there are often unknown variables or outliers that can't be explained until the perp is caught and tells all. As far as me having an open mind I have to laugh. I've been humoring you all along with your theory trying to see it through your eyes. If that's not having an open mind I'll be damned if I know what is. Yet you are stubbornly and tenaciously sticking to your theory in spite of a mountain of evidence against it. The intruder theory may not be very popular these days but I'd wager virtually no one believes in the John Ramsey acted alone bit. Maybe you've swayed a few posters here, I don't know. As for Lou Smit, I agree with him that it was an intruder but not other things. For instance the stun gun bit should be marginalized for the same reason I don't consider the evidence of sexual abuse, photographic evidence. Those marks could be something else. Plus a stun gun seems to exotic to me. I can't say for sure, but pretty unlikely. I should point out that, unlike you, I'm not married to the intruder theory. I've yet to see compelling evidence that the Ramseys were involved. If I see it I'll gladly dump the IDI theory. I've already ordered Kolar's book and I'm looking forward to reading it. If he can convince me it wasn't an intruder, no prob. I'm not stubbornly married to it. But, on the contrary, he better be able to come up with a strong viable alternative or we're right back where we started from.

We have no choice but to sideline the document examiners. There are actually two sets of such "experts," those who found Patsy unlikely and those who are convinced Patsy MUST have written it. And as I recall there were six in one group and five in the other, pretty evenly matched. So what does that tell you about the state of the art in this field? If the ones who fingered Patsy are wrong, then why must we assume the ones who ruled John out are right? If it's a real science, then we'd see no disagreement among any of them. It seems clear to me that in all these cases, the "experts" saw what they wanted to see and ignored everything else. Sorry, I won't defer to such judgements.

You claim to be open minded, yet when confronted with the absurdities of the intruder theory you come up with some of the most outlandish "explanations" I've ever seen. And when challenged on that score, you defend yourself by claiming that we have no way of knowing exactly what this person might have been thinking at the time. I'm sorry, but that's not good enough. Because you could "prove" anything on that basis.

You refuse to believe that a "loving father" could have murdered his daughter, but you have no problem accepting an intruder with a typed note suddenly deciding on the spur of the moment to hand print a copy of that note on a pad from the house simply because a fingerprint got on the first one. Now that's pretty original, I'll grant you that. Sure, why be logical when the logic points so clearly away from what you want to believe? And you claim you're open minded and giving my theory the benefit of the doubt? Please!

Fact is, a kidnapper wouldn't have needed a note in the first place, so if he had a problem with the note he brought with him, he'd have simply forgotten about the note, and called the Ramsey home first thing in the morning with his instructions. But excuse me, I'm being logical. Who can say what was on his mind, right? Especially if he never existed in the first place!

Dr. Cyril Wecht, probably THE leading forensic pathologist in the world, who has consulted on cases all over the planet, concluded that the chronic injuries to JonBenet's vagina wall were consistent with prior molestation. I've discussed the case with Dr. Wecht and he agreed with me that John was the molester and thus also the murderer. Only Wecht, like you and so many others, could never get past the decision to rule John out, so he remains convinced Patsy must have written the note to cover for her husband. Regardless, it is naive to insist there is no evidence linking John to this crime. Sure, Wecht could be wrong, but so could Dr. Beuf. If you truly had an open mind you'd be willing to accept the possibility that Wecht could be right.

And while it is true that originally hardly anyone thought John could have done this all on his own, if you look through the comments on this blog, you'll see that many people have been won over by my arguments.

The turning point, for you, ought to be your own insight that the ransom note was very likely written in advance. I must admit you got me thinking on that one and I'm starting to see the case in a somewhat different light, so thank you. If in fact the note was written in advance, as you yourself have insisted (I'm not 100% sure, but I tend in that direction), then that should put an end to the intruder theory right there. The note was written on a note pad from the house. John had access to that pad and could easily have taken it with him when he headed for the airport on Xmas day. The intruder would not have had access to the pad until he'd entered the house. So if he'd prepared a note ahead of time, why didn't he use that note? What possible motive could he have had for copying his original onto paper from the Ramsey notepad?

Of course that doesn't seem to have bothered you, because no matter how absurd the intruder theory gets you manage to come up with an "explanation" that's even more absurd. The notion that an intruder with a typed note would go to all the trouble to hand copy that note word for word, all 2 1/2 pages of it, while hanging around in the Ramsey home with no idea when they'd return, sorry but that won't wash.

It seems clear to me that you are in fact married to the intruder theory. And no matter how absurd it gets you can still manage to find some explanation that works for you. "My dog ate the homework" might sound reasonable to some kid trying to get away with something, but most teachers wouldn't be impressed. And for good reason.

Doesn't matter, clearly the police, DA's office etc believed the doc examiners findings, because, to the best of my knowledge, nobody contested their results and there was no dissension. As far as Patsy is concerned, there was some dissension although I believe the overall finding was that she didn't. What that tells me is that Patsy can't be totally ruled out, if one were to strictly go by the note. Sorry but I'll stick with the findings of JBR's doctor who had an actual live body to work with, thank you very much. Cyril Wecht is a media hungry quack. This is the same guy that didn't believe the JFK single bullet finding. Mind you he was the only pathologist who thought so. The other 8 or 9 had no prob with it. but I suppose you think he's right and they're all wrong. If you want to believe that guy, be my guest. Well you're putting your logic onto the killer's. When I tried to question JR's actions, you told me I can't get into his head and what's logical for me isn't necessarily logical for him. I guess it's OK for you to question my killer's logic, but I can't question yours. Incidentally, I watched a youtube vid with Kolar talking about his book(I ordered it). Evidently, he thinks the marks on JBR's back were made with a piece of train track. The marks do seem to line up well. I never believed it was a stun gun anyway. Since the wounds were fresh, I guess he believes Burke was jabbing her with it while she was alive...creepy.

Well your welcome, I'm so glad I could help you firm up your theory! Honestly, I admit there are some internal probs with mine. Understand I'm not like some who have devoted years to this case. I've only started looking at it again since I started chatting with you. But it has been sort of turning around in my mind these past few days. I'd forgotten bits and pieces of it.

I just counted the number of words in the RN. Roughly 370. That's a pretty good amount of words. And yes that's a heck of a lot of words to transcribe. It's a problem. I never counted them before. Didn't realize there were that many. In fact when you look at it that way, with all those words, it seems even more improbable that anybody banged that note out AFTER the crime. It would've required some serious work. Because not only do they have to think about what to say, they have to take the time to physically write it. I've been thinking about the BDI theory, and it seems that's a popular one these days, but I can see flaws in that one. If Burke killed JBR, why the coverup? Why not just call the police and get Burke the help he so desperately needs. If we believe the BDI theory we have to believe that JR and PR at some point decided to involve themselves in this elaborate coverup to get Burke off the hook, knowing full well that if the police are on to them they are going to jail. That's pretty heavy and they risk losing everything they've worked for following that plan. Yes, people can go to great lengths for their kids but it seems extreme. But since I do believe the note was written in advance that kills that theory anyway. I mean JBR is dead, Burke just killed her and they'd be freaking out. And yet they have the composure to write out a 370 word note? Doesn't add up. If Kolar can sell me on his theory, fabulous. I'll gladly abandon mine. Incidentally I was listening to Kolar on a radio program and he said, that while he doesn't think an intruder was involved, he didn't rule it out completely. First of all, it's just possible the perp knew when the Ramseys left and knew he had some time in the home. As to why the perp has decided to transcribe his copy of the note onto the pad, we don't really know. It may be a reason you and I aren't coming up with. So the perp is hiding out copying this note. I'd estimate that takes maybe a half hour, hour tops. He could be doing it partly for a reason and partly because he's bored out of his skull. It's not unheard of for perps to hide out in homes waiting. Not too long after the JBR case, some guy attempted to abduct a girl in Boulder but was scared off. Cops estimated he was hiding in the closet for maybe 4 hours. I admit the ransom note for me is problematic. But it's problematic for all the various theories. I'm really not married to my theory. I just haven't seen a compelling alternative to lure me away from it. That is I have big probs with all the other theories, including yours. It makes me wonder sometimes if anybody has go it right.

"Well you're putting your logic onto the killer's. When I tried to question JR's actions, you told me I can't get into his head and what's logical for me isn't necessarily logical for him. I guess it's OK for you to question my killer's logic, but I can't question yours."

When you insisted there was no way John would bother to write such a long note, I told you you couldn't know what was on his mind, and that is indeed the case. When I insisted there is no way a would be kidnapper would enter a home carrying a long ransom note and then decide to copy that note word for word into a notepad found in the house, that is NOT the same thing, sorry. Because it's not just a matter of getting into someone's head, it's a matter of swallowing a totally implausible notion of what a real kidnapper might actually do.

As for the rest, I appreciate your second comment and do appreciate the difficulty and frustration of trying to understand a case that's this complicated and wacky.

And I'm not saying Wecht has to be right. All I'm saying is that if we rely on the "experts" we have to recognize that these "experts" have been all over the place as far as this case is concerned. If you want to say there is no evidence of prior molestation, well my answer would be that according to Wecht there is.

I'm glad you counted the words, and now realize what a task it was to write that note by hand. And if I'm right and John copied or traced it from a computer display that would make it even more arduous. It IS hard to believe it could have been written after the murder, so thanks again for bringing that up. I now think he may well have written it in advance, but for some reason wasn't able to print it out, possibly because he had no ready access to a printer and was afraid someone might spot him if he tried to print it at his office. On xmas day that would stick out like a sore thumb. Since imo his plan would have been to destroy the note before it could be studied by the authorities, the fact that it was hand written on a pad from the house might not have mattered to him anyhow.

I still see no reason to believe an intruder was present, but I appreciate all the thought you've put into this case and your critical comments, though sometimes annoying, have been helpful. I've enjoyed our conversation here very much. It's given me a chance to think everything through more completely and accurately.

Thanks Doc. Yes it's been interesting. Some people can care less about this case but then there are people like you and I who love a good mystery. I'd love to see this case solved. Not because I want to prove my theory, I just want to know what the hell happened.

Admittedly my theory has problems but I see big probs with yours. Look at it this way, if JR wrote the RN and is able to fool PR with it, he has 3 options. He knows the cops are coming into this so he can either A. Destroy it or B. Hold onto it or C. create a new one. If he destroys it the police will want to know what happened to the note. He could say he gave it back to the kidnappers but I've never heard of anything like this and the cops would be extremely suspicious of this. Ramsey would have to realize the cops would be all over it. Especially since Patsy would be able corroborate the fact that it was handwritten. The cops would logically think that JR is trying to be cute by getting rid of a note that could be linked to him. If he holds onto it, well that is a big prob too because he can't be sure the cops can't match the handwriting to his. He could try and create a new one either printed or typewritten but that's a prob too. If the note is typewritten, Patsy would surely point out that that is not the same note. If he tries to hand print it and alter his style even more than the RN, he still can't be sure the examiners won't be able to match it to him or, for that matter that PR won't notice the changes. You could argue that JR would have to convince PR to help cover his ass, but since he had this all planned out, it's highly unlikely that he would've thought she'd go along with it. And since JR has this all planned out, he surely would've realized the prob of how to handle the ransom note. And if I could see these issues, surely he would've. You see the problems here?

Whether the murder of JBR was premeditated or not one could argue that the RN was completely unnecessary. Why not just leave a door unlocked or a window or 2 opened. Not everybody locks their doors. It's a big house and evidently, the Ramseys were pretty lax with security. The cops would buy this, I would. As far as the broken window in the basement being staged by John. I'm not buying it. The cops didn't believe this either. It looked like what it was, an old break in. After all even if JR staged all that by throwing dirt around and on the window etc, he can't be sure the cops won't see through this and, like I said, he could simply have left a door or window open to accomplish the same thing. I'm not a big fan of the staging stuff, cops always see through it. What I'm trying to say here is that JR, our arch-criminal, by introducing the RN is adding an elaborate element that he must've realized could very definitely lead back to him. Of course you could argue he didn't have the whole thing figured out yet. But I would argue the RN seems complete. A well thought out finished document. But like you said, anything's possible right? More>>>

"If he destroys it the police will want to know what happened to the note. He could say he gave it back to the kidnappers but I've never heard of anything like this and the cops would be extremely suspicious of this."

First of all, it's not difficult to understand why the kidnappers would want their note returned, since it could be used to identify them. Second of all: sure the cops would be suspicious, very suspicious. But without the note, and without any other evidence, they'd have nothing to go on other than their suspicions. And you can't prosecute on the basis of suspicion alone. I think it was an excellent plan and might well have worked. And believe me I'd love to take credit for it myself. But it's John who deserves the credit, I must admit. :-(

"You see the problems here?" Sorry but I don't. John would have destroyed the note and claimed he returned it to the kidnappers. He'd have made a copy to show the police and use that to justify not calling them earlier. He could have cared less whether or not the authorities suspected him. Without evidence their hands would have been tied.

"one could argue that the RN was completely unnecessary." The RN gives him a reason not to call the cops right away and buys him time to get rid of the body the following night, along with all the other evidence. Without the RN he'd have been forced to report it as a home invasion and the body and all the other evidence would have been there for the police to find, including the evidence of prior abuse. Of course all that was found anyhow, but that certainly could not have been the plan. In any case, an intruder would certainly have had no need for such a note, nor any need to hand print it, nor any need to write it while in the house, nor any need to leave it behind along with the body of the "kidnap" victim. While John could have made things simpler by not bothering to stage a kidnapping or write a note, there are many reasons why he might think that the authorities would buy it and that he might get completely off the hook if they did.

"As far as the broken window in the basement being staged by John. I'm not buying it. The cops didn't believe this either."

By telling the cops he himself had broken the window earlier, he was telling them what they wanted to hear. Because they were claiming no one had entered or left via that window on the night of the crime and that story reinforced their claim. And after all, "why would he tell such a story if his intention were to stage a phoney breakin?" The possibility that he had originally staged the breakin but then realized it wasn't going to work apparently never entered their minds. If he had NOT told that story, then the staging would have been obvious and he'd have been arrested immediately.

If you read his testimony regarding that story you'll see how absurd it is. He is obviously lying.

If the RN was unnecessary it would not exist. JR could have formulated a plan that didn't include a RN, but he (or someone) did in fact include a RN. Therefore, we have to ask why?

To me the reason is obvious - the RN explains the (eventual) disappearance of JB.

If the plan had been to let the cops find the body, or to have JR "find" the body while the cops were in the house, and if the plan also included blaming an intruder who was obviously not concerned with actually collecting ransom (people usually won't pay ransom after the body has been discovered) then there either wouldn't be any note, or it wouldn't be a RN.

No reason to overthink the situation. A RN explains a disappearance. It also tells us the original plan had to include getting rid of the body.

A detective fresh on this case may use the theory of Occam's Razor(the simplest solution is most likely the correct one) in their approach, but I would argue that this case has a “high strangeness” about it that doesn't lead to a simple solution. After all look at it this way: Steve Thomas thinks it's Patsy, Lou Smit an intruder, and Kolar thinks it's Burke. If the professionals can't get there shit together on this case is it any wonder that there are a myriad number of theories being bandied about! I've seen some pretty far out ones. One other possibility is that this is the work of someone who knows the Ramseys fairly well and is trying to get back at them in some way. Possibly planting the note in some way to frame them. But honestly that's pretty out there. The problem in all these scenarios isn't the murder, it's the note. How to explain it? If the damn thing was nice and short you could fit it into the scenarios better. But it isn't it goes on and on an on. As far as me being annoying at times well that's because I'm challenging your theory and nobody likes to have they're theories challenged. Especially if they've worked so hard at creating one. But I think it's wrong for you, me, or anybody to pigheadedly stick a theory if it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I freely admit my intruder theory has problems. In fact the more I really think about it the less sure of it I am. Just for the record, while I don't agree with your theory I don't necessarily think it's a crazy one. I've seen some where the theorist has John and Patsy doing all sorts of crazy shit that night and I would simply ask the question-How can you possibly know that?

I must admit that my take on this case is hard to swallow, and might seem full of holes. But that's only because of certain complications that have made the case inordinately difficult to understand:

1. The fact the John was "ruled out," by the "experts," a decision which was rarely ever questioned, but which sent the investigators off on an epic wild goose chase. The only reason that Thomas, Smit and Kolar came up with such nutty theories is that they bought into John being ruled out and so had no other choice but to consider truly bizarre alternative scenarios that made no sense. Meanwhile all eyes moved away from John and toward Patsy, who became extremely vulnerable (see point 3).

2. The fact that John's plan A had to be scrapped and plan B substituted, which led to bizarre complications, such as the story about breaking the window earlier.

3. Patsy's role in the case, which caused the investigators to assume they must be in it together. As I see it, the decision to rule him out made it easy for John to manipulate his unsuspecting wife into supporting his version of what happened. No doubt their lawyers also played a role in this charade.

Most people find it difficult to accept complications of this sort. They want to keep things simple. Unfortunately there is NO simple path through this case. It's only when we unravel the meaning of the note and realize that Patsy's 911 call blew the plan behind it that we are able to get on the right track and think it through coherently.

Incidentally, it's important to give all these experts the proper scaling. That is, many of the doc examiners did not have the proper training and were not board certified. It's my understanding that the certification is 2 or more years and is fairly intense. And there is only one recognized licensing agency. The findings of other agencies or, god forbid, self taught individuals should be given less weight if not totally marginalized. Also, it should be noted that some of the later experts, in PR's case, didn't have the actual RN to work with.

The same principle goes for Drs. Beuf and Wecht. Beuf was JBR's doctor for three years and had done urinary examinations, etc. He found no evidence of sexual abuse. Wecht, I believe, was studying the autopsy pics. The primary physician should certainly be given more weight. Other docs looked at those pics and didn't think there was any unusual trauma to the area. I don't believe JBR was sexually abused over time but I can't say what happened that night. If Wecht is seeing trauma, it's just possible it happened that evening.

Questioned doc examination is NOT science. These examiners are used to dealing with forgeries, NOT ransom notes written with a disguised hand. There was no reason to accept the verdict that ruled out John, I see no basis for it.

Dr. Beuf saw no signs of abuse because that's not the sort of thing he was looking for. He never actually examined the interior of JonBenet's vagina, so his observations have no bearing on the case. Wecht's interpretation is based directly on the medical examiner's report, which noted "chronic" injuries to the vaginal wall. Chronic, not acute.

Nah, first of all, using your argument, why would kidnappers risk leaving a handwritten note instead of a typewritten one? Isn't that what you said about an intruder? But ok for whatever reason they leave a handwritten note. They can't be certain he'd bring it back. If Ramsey were being so clever wouldn't he have put a line in the RN that said "bring this note along with the money". Then he could show that to Patsy and she would be able corroborate why he doesn't have it. After all he's thought of everything here, why not include that? I submit the cops would've been super suspicious either way.

Also, realize this is just stage one in his master plan. He's still got to wait for the call from the kidnappers. He's got to create a whole scenario around that. What the perp said, what he sounded like, etc. He would've had to stage a phony phone call to his home, hopefully during the hours mentioned. The police would subpoena his phone records. The note says the delivery will be exhausting which implies they will be running him all over the place. The cops will want to know all his movements that day. If he had to go from pay phone to pay phone etc. Ramsey would have to substantiate all of this. I really could go on and on. As far as a copied note for the police, well they could've still matched his handwriting. As for evidence, the circumstantial evidence would've been so overwhelming that he would've gone to jail. Juries don't always need a body to convict. You see this as an excellent plan I see it as the plan of a madman.

Like I already stated the police thought that the broken window appeared to be an old break exactly like JR said it was. They saw no evidence of staging. You say it was staged , I say the cops were there, you weren't. In order to make it fit your claim, JR was lying. I would argue the man was an emotional wreck and didn't know what he was doing or saying. And again there would be no reason to stage that break in, an open window or unlocked door would've worked fine.

And like I said there was no dissension amongst the doc examiners in JR's case and that is ironclad. There was in PR's case a guy named Epstein, whom the courts ruled an expert, thought it a 90-95% chance she wrote it. His credentials seem pretty solid. She can't be ruled out as the author of that note IMHO.

This is getting tiresome, Pete. You are happy to accept all sorts of improbable behavior on the part of an intruder, but you refuse to accept that the note could have been part of a plan to remove the body before calling the police. I have it on good authority that John was in fact THE suspect and the only suspect during the early stages of the investigation, which means that the investigators did not have your problem with John as writer of the note. It was only after the decision to rule him out that they felt forced to look elsewhere, i.e., at Patsy.

The note was written for a reason, Pete, it wasn't just a pointless fantasy. The only reason for such a note, based on what we now know about the case, would be to stage a fake kidnapping. And stage it in such a way as to enable the perp to get rid of the body under pretext of delivering a ransom. It's basically pretty simple, though admittedly John would have had to execute his plan with precision.

Who else could have written that note? As you yourself have claimed, it must have been prepared ahead of time. But an intruder would have had access to that notepad only AFTER entering the house. So sorry the intruder does NOT compute. Patsy? The note would not have done anything for her. It was addressed to John and it put John in charge of the situation, not her. And if you want to argue that there was really no need for a note in the first place, then sorry that's irrelevant. Because there WAS in fact a note, that's solid evidence, no one disputes that.

As for the call from the kidnappers, it would really have been quite simple. Not insane, not off the wall, just clever. He'd go to a remote phone booth (remember them?) and call his home. The answering machine would answer the call. He'd stand and wait for a few minutes, not saying anything. That would place the "kidnapper's" call into the phone companies records. He would then go home and erase the silent message from the tape.

Was he smart enough to think of that? Well, John was the CEO of a billion dollar company, so I'd say: yes. I'm not the CEO of anything and I thought of it, so it can't be that difficult.

"As far as a copied note for the police, well they could've still matched his handwriting." I have no idea what you mean by that. If he handed them a note in his handwriting, claiming it was a copy of the original, what would be the point of their "matching his handwriting"? I think you're wearing yourself out here, Pete.

"Like I already stated the police thought that the broken window appeared to be an old break exactly like JR said it was." I don't think they thought that at all. I think they were confused. If they were sure the break was old then why did they spend so much time questioning John about it, and on two separate occasions? Also why would they ask both John and Patsy if the window had ever been repaired? If it was clearly an old break, there'd be no need to ask that question. I think they weren't sure, and finally decided to give John the benefit of the doubt on that one because in their eyes he was corroborating their finding that no intruder could have entered via that window the night of the murder. They lacked imagination, they were short sighted, they were incapable of seeing through his misdirection.

As far as Epstein is concerned, he was 100% sure Patsy wrote it. But the judge wasn't impressed and neither am I.

Well I disagree. While It's not a science like biology, etc, it's approach uses scientific methods and the findings of these 6 experts TAKEN COLLECTIVELY effectively rules JR out. If even one person came back saying that JR wrote it, that would be significant. Conclusion, he didn't write it. Period. And before you attack my intruder theory, I freely admit there are probs with it. It should also be pointed out that both the police and the FBI saw no evidence of prior sexual abuse. As far as the drs are concerned, looking at photos, for every one that saw something there was another who didn't. I don't believe she was being abused on a regular basis. By all accounts her outward behavior was normal. It most likely wouldn't be if she was. However there may have been some sort of vaginal trauma on the night in question.

"the findings of these 6 experts TAKEN COLLECTIVELY effectively rules JR out."

Then by the same token, the findings of all the experts enlisted by Darnay Hoffmann effectively rules Patsy IN. And yet the 6 experts you're referring to found it "unlikely" that she wrote it. If you accept the intruder theory then you are free to pick and choose who to believe. So naturally you believe the ones who ruled John out and you reject the ones who ruled Patsy in. It has nothing to do with science, it has to do with accepting whatever supports your theory and rejecting what doesn't.

My reason for rejecting both sets of "experts" has nothing to do with whether or not their findings support my "pet theory," though I'll probably never convince you of that. It's because neither conclusion makes sense. If we accept both or either, then the whole case just dissolves before our eyes. If you could come up with an intruder theory that made sense, I'd be happy to reconsider my theory, but so far no one has even come close.

Actually that's not entirely true. Looking through the findings of the BPD examiners it looks as if 2 or 3 thought she may have written it but were not willing to conclusively state as much.

I have come up with a better intruder theory which would explain the writing on the pad. I'm now thinking the intruder was definitely somebody who knew them to some extent. The fact that they know John by name and the bit about his company, etc. The bit about the southern charm implies they must know him at least fairly well. My thinking now is that this individual had no intention of kidnapping JBR, but in a devious way wanted to point the finger their way. It would explain why they used the Ramsey pad and leaving JBR's body in the house. The perp would know that the cops would think the Ramsey's were involved. As to why the perp would leave the body, I can go either way on that. But by leaving the body there, kind of hidden in that room makes the Ramseys look even more guilty. This person may hate the Ramseys or they created this elaborate plan to draw suspicion away from them and toward the Ramseys. The note is being written on the pad knowing The Ramseys are going to have a hell of a time explaining it. I would argue that the perp wasn't thinking far ahead with doc analysis and all that. As to why it's so long, it may be because the perp doesn't really know what a ransom note looks like, thus all the cliches. Or it could be because the longer and crazier it looks the less the cops would believe it. And thus they would believe the Ramsey's faked it. Another way to look at this is-perp is planning to either kill or grab JBR. This isn't about ransom. Perp could've just killed her or abducted and left. By having a ransom note written on their stationary it points the finger of suspicion at them. This explains the pad and it explains why it was written in advance. I don't believe the perp would be that cool to write it after.

Sorry but you don't set someone up by leaving a note printed in YOUR hand. Unless you feel confident you can effectively forge your mark's hand, which was certainly NOT the case in this instance. None of the many people who examined the note even suggested that might be the case. And as you continually remind me, John was unanimously ruled out. Some forgery!

If the note wasn't forged to look like John's printing, then it does nothing to implicate John. And in fact he's pointed to it as intruder evidence.

Well duh, they'd want to match his handwriting because they wouldn't believe his cock and bull story and they'd want to check his handwriting to see if it matches the note. They'd see through all this nonsense. Like I said this is the stuff of murder novels. As far as JR being CEO. I would argue that has absolutely nothing to do with carrying out this master plan of yours. The cops were probably grilling him about the window wondering why he didn't get it fixed. I would've been suspicious of that as well. Evidently, he forgot about it. I've already stated JR would've had no reason to break that window. He could have left a door unlocked etc. Evidently, you don't see that.

And yes I'm pretty much done going over this. My goal wasn't to continue to bash your theory I was simply trying to follow the logic of it. It doesn't work for me, but it works for you and that's fine. I do have a variation of the intruder theory that would explain why the perp would use the Ramsey pad, but I'm sure you don't care to hear it.

Well, duh, we're talking about his copy of the note so why wouldn't it match his handwriting?

And yes the cops were curious about why he didn't get the window fixed, that's the ticket. But John was no help anyhow because he "couldn't recall." Sorry, but you need to take a refresher course in critical thinking, Pete.

Oh, I thought you meant he was giving a copy of the actual ransomnote to the cops. You weren't clear on that. Cops would of course still be wondering why he didn't make a xerox copy. whatever, you've got it figured out.

"Sorry, but you need to take a refresher course in critical thinking, Pete." No need to be rude, dipshit. And for the record, you're theory is totally fucking wrong.

"Oh, I thought you meant he was giving a copy of the actual ransom note to the cops."

You mean a xerox? Why on earth would he be stupid enough to do that?

If the police wondered why he didn't make a xerox he'd just say he didn't think of it, or he didn't have access to a xerox machine -- so he just typed the contents into his computer.

Making a xerox of his original hand printed note would have been an incredibly dumb thing to do, Pete. Which is why I am sometimes rude. I don't get annoyed when you disagree with me. What's annoying is that sometimes you can be really dense. Take that as advice, and not as an insult.

Pete, if you're still reading here, I want to apologize. I sometimes get impatient and also insensitive to how others might react to some of the things I say when in that state. Your assumption that copying the note meant xeroxing it was understandable. I should have made myself more clear. And sure, the investigators would have wondered why he didn't simply make a xerox if he didn't, because that does seem like the logical thing to do. My guess is that his plan was to tell them he was being monitored and was afraid they might spot him making a xerox at the bank. But they would certainly have been suspicious, so you have a point. Sorry about being such an ass.

Hi, I have read a lot of these posts and thoughts across this blog and other sites. One thing I have not seen is any detailed speculation on the 'special visit from Santa Clause'. Perhaps that was something JR or BR told JBR and was there plan for late the night of the 26th. It could also explain them being in the basement. Just a thought, I am sure there may be have been earlier discussion of this elsewhere.

That "special visit" is part of the folklore of the case. It's interesting but it's hard to know what to make of it. Some people think JonBenet herself may have let "Santa" in that night, but that doesn't begin to take into account everything that happened. It certainly doesn't explain why that long ransom note would have been written in the house and left on the stairs by a "kidnapper" who never actually kidnapped anyone. My guess is that John himself was probably the one who promised her that "special visit." The bottom line is that we'll probably never know exactly what that was all about.

I read on Wikipedia that the "knot" used to tie up JonBenet was not just a regular knot and would have had to come from someone with experience. Looking at John Ramseys background he was a Navy officer and surely would have had to learn these type of knots. Is there anything suggesting that the knot used was something from a person with military background?

There's been a lot of speculation on the knot, but as I understand it, and I could be wrong, it was basically a relatively simple slip knot. I seriously doubt that either Patsy or Burke would have known how to tie a slip knot, but John, as a navy vet and the owner of his own boat, would certainly have known how to tie one. The device has been described as a "garotte" incidentally, but apparently that's not actually what it was. It was apparently just a slip knot attached to a stick, for leverage I suppose.

It's a simple knot that PR/BR or JR could have tied. It takes no special talent.

The peculiar thing about this "slip knot" is that it only slips one way - it tightens easily. It does not slip the other way - it does not loosen easily.

I constructed the knot a dozen times, following the instructions by Delmar England (as an aside, Delmar is full of beans on almost everything he turns his attention to) using nylon line similar to what was used in the actual murder.

The "garrotte" didn't function well as a garrotte as it didn't loosen easily. For the same reason it's not really suitable as an EA device. It's basically a noose.

I suspect the stick is for staging, as it really provides little in the way of leverage. One would get more leverage wrapping the long end of the rope around the hand before pulling. An artist's paintbrush is hardly stout enough for that kind of force - perhaps why it broke?

"It's a simple knot that PR/BR or JR could have tied. It takes no special talent."

Well I consider myself talented and I'm sure I couldn't have tied it. And I was a boy scout. Next time you're in the super market I suggest you take a survey of women shoppers, asking them if they know how to tie a slip knot. Also you might want to visit your neighborhood middle school to take a similar survey of nine year olds. I could be wrong, but I very much doubt there are many women or nine year old boys who know to tie such a knot. (Navy veterans excepted, natch.)

I agree that this was not an EA device, but a noose. It didn't have to loosen, only tighten. If you want to see it as staging, though, you have to ask yourself what is it that was being staged? Wasn't the sexual assault and the club over the head more than enough to stage a murderous intruder? What was gained, staging-wise, by going to the trouble of constructing this device. Do you really see a mother who'd just killed her child by accident, taking time to strangle her in this manner just for show? And if you want to see her as consumed by rage, then I'm sorry, because taking the time and trouble to construct a "garotte" or whatever you want to call it is not consistent with rage. A brutal beating is consistent with rage, not a ligature strangulation.

Just because the knot has a name doesn't mean it's hard to tie. Most people don't know the names of knots, so if you ask them to make a slip knot they'll say they don't know how.

So there is no confusion, I'm taking about the knot at her neck, not the one attaching the paint brush handle to the rope. (I'm a Navy vet, and I don't think I could tie that on the first try)

I would suggest this test - ask people to tie a knot so that the circle will tighten when the end of the rope is pulled. Suggest they put it around their arm. Shoppers, elementary school students, anyone you like. I bet lots of people tie something very similar to knot in question, even if they don't know it's called a slip knot. People know intuitively how to make this. (And there isn't just one and only one slip knot)

IMO the knot at the other end is more interesting, showing some skill and knowledge. There are easier faster ways to tie a handle to a rope. Not sure why this was used. It adds little to nothing functionally, so I suspect it's for staging.

We agree it's not an EA device.

"... you have to ask yourself what is it that was being staged? "

Excellent question. And I don't know. But one must also ask what functional purpose the stick had, if it was not staging? It would have been easy enough just to pull on the standing end (long part) of the rope. If it was hard to hang on to, a couple turns (wraps) around the hand would be sufficient to hold on to it.

So, I'll think about your question if you'll think about mine.

"Wasn't the sexual assault and the club over the head more than enough to stage a murderous intruder? "

It's my belief that the blow to the head wasn't sufficient (e.g. didn't kill her and it was noticeable she was still alive) otherwise, as you say, why bother with the garrotte? The SA and bash on the noggin would have been enough, had she died.

"What was gained, staging-wise, by going to the trouble of constructing this device. "

As far as the business end, nothing is gained except the certainty that she is dead. But at the handle end, what is gained by attaching a very small stick with a fancy knot? Neither the fancy knot nor the handle are necessary, or even useful, for killing purposes.

"Do you really see a mother who'd just killed her child by accident, taking time to strangle her in this manner just for show?"

No, but I don't see PR as the garrotte maker. IMy point was simply that the knot is, imo, not beyond her capability. It's not a complex knot that takes lots and lots of training to be able to make.

I also don't see JR making this "fru fru" knot with a skinny paint brush handle in it for show either, but he must have made it. So why?

"And if you want to see her as consumed by rage, then I'm sorry, because taking the time and trouble to construct a "garotte" or whatever you want to call it is not consistent with rage. A brutal beating is consistent with rage, not a ligature strangulation."

Not sure where this is coming from. I said nothing about PR being the one to make the garrotte, or having any rage. I simply said that the knot isn't beyond her capability. I could be wrong, but imo it really is a very simple knot that most people could make if you told them what you wanted it to do.

So, what about the handle end? Why the fancy knot and the ity bity stick that can't really take much force? If the garrotte was purely for killing (and I think it was primarily for killing) then why this fru fru stuff?

An additional point about the knot at the handle end. I don't know what this accomplishes, but I do know it provides little in the way of function.

We can figure out that JR killed JB, and that he alone did the staging. But we can't figure out the meaning of everything he did. Why bother identifying the kidnappers as agents of a SFF? Does it matter who the kidnappers are? Why SBTC? What's it mean? Why the size 12 panties?

We may not be able to figure out why the fancy knot and paintbrush handle were added to the noose. But if it's not staging, then what? Any thoughts?

You make some excellent points and I'm sorry but my knowledge of knots is practically nill so I can't help you. My best guess is that the device might have worked differently than the way you, or Delmore, think it did. If you'd had a chance to actually handle it, take it apart, put it together again and strangle someone with it (just kidding), then it might make more sense to you. My gut tells me it was not staging but something put together very quickly to make strangling more efficient -- probably something learned in the Navy.

Well it is possible that it works differently than I think, given that I don't know everything about making garrottes.

I have fashioned a similar "garrotte" with similar rope. I followed the instructions posted by Delmar England on A Candy Rose. Following those instructions I ended up with a knot that looked like the one in the photos we've all seen.

That's how I found that the knot only slips in one direction. I've put the "garrotte" around things, including human arms, and pulled on it to see how it works. I didn't make the handle or that knot that holds the handle, just the "business" end.

What I found was that it slips easily in the direction of tightening the noose. It doesn't slip back. It also won't tighten completely up against an object w/o some help. The noose will close but at some point the knot doesn't constrict any further by just pulling on the long part of the rope. To get the knot up tight to an object (or someone's neck) it would be necessary to use the other hand over the knot. (But in the autopsy photos I don't see any impression made be the knot - yet there is a nice circumferential furrow)

It's very easy to pull, w/o the handle. A wrap around the hand gives one all the hold needed to exert one's full strength in pulling the noose tight.

So, while any of us must always admit the possibility of being wrong, I have in fact constructed the garrotte -minus handle- and tested it. My experiment tells me the handle and that knot that holds it aren't necessary for killing.

Looking again at the photos of the garrotte it seems the knot holding the handle isn't quite as complicated (fancy) as I recalled, yet I still believe it's not something basic and intuitive. Someone would have to have practiced such a knot a few times. The paintbrush handle is also stouter than I recall. Still, it seems much easier to me to just pull the rope with the hand, rather than spending time making that handle.

It's hard to say. I don't see the garrotte adding anything to a kidnapping scenario, but I also don't see any need to bother attaching the handle. Because the knot won't slip back (loosen) it's not necessary to sustain tension on the standing end of the rope - every tug tightens and it won't loosen. The handle would seem to be of more use if sustained tension were needed.

Maybe JR just constructed what he'd learned to construct, regardless of the actual need?

If Sig is still around, I have a couple questions for him:1. Why is he seemingly willing to accept the experts' assertion that the RN was written by a female, but is apparently unwilling to accept their belief that the note was written AFTER JB was dead?2. Why does he continuously refrain from including the sexual assault in his theory that two female adolescent, friends of the Ramseys broke in to burglarize them and then argued about whether to kidnap or kill a 6-year-old they liked, with the murderous one winning out?I swear, with theories like that out there, I'm finding myself ever more drawn to Kolar's idea about the six acrobatic little people!

I definitely respect your work on the case despite the fact that I have a different opinion about what happened.

One thing I would ask you: Why do you think John Ramsey continued to spend so much money on private investigators and continued to make TV appearances, if he was guilty? Once he knew he had avoided indictment and arrest, why didn't he just slip away into the shadows?

I think you may put too much stock into the ransom note. After looking at this case for a year, I realized you can only take 1 clue away from the note: the $118,000 figure. It's the only objective element in there. With everything else in the note, you can't know for sure where the writer was lying or telling the truth, or if they had a plan that later changed, or what. Any attempt to decipher the exact mindset and intention of the author is fruitless. A killer capable of a crime like this could have all sorts of idiosyncratic reasons for writing what he wrote, that only make sense to him. Even if someone happened to correctly decipher the author's exact intention and meaning, they can't *know* they're correct.

In another post you pondered "who was the body being hidden from?" You concluded it was John hiding it from Patsy, but my own answer to your question would be:

If an intruder killed JB, he hides her body where he does for a few reasons.

1.) He feels shame / guilt upon realizing what he's done.2.) It's his way of burying her in the best way he can. 3.) He wants to put the body out of the way to buy himself as much time as possible before police realize this is a murder.

Forget about the window for a moment. It's entirely possible an intruder walks up to the Ramsey house, while they're out, and finds an unlocked door.

I think it's safe to say the Ramseys and their neighbors did not think bad things would happen there. There was hardly any crime to speak of in Boulder, so I think it's very possible the Ramseys could have left one of their many doors unlocked as they left for Christmas dinner.

The Ramseys seem like the type of people who would overlook making sure all doors are locked when going out. In different parts of the country / world there are many people who leave doors unlocked 24 / 7.

As for the "state" of the doors / windows the next morning and day, we can't go by that because so many people show up and contaminate the crime scene. I don't think we can really know what was locked, and when, and by who.

For some reason, my "Reply" button isn't working, so I'm going to respond to all Alex's comments here.

"Why do you think John Ramsey continued to spend so much money on private investigators and continued to make TV appearances, if he was guilty?"

The purpose of the private investigators was to muddy the waters and throw off the police by coming up with a long series of red herrings for them to waste time researching. It was also part of a public relations campaign to counteract the strong suspicions of so many that JonBenet's murder was an inside job. As for the TV appearances, these were in many cases book promotions. Since he lost his job, writing these books became an important source of income -- but sales depended on the publicity generated by the TV appearances.

As far as the ransom note is concerned, I agree that the note in itself does not tell us who wrote it, or who killed JonBenet. Its meaning is, as you say, open to interpretation. However the facts I used to determine that John is the only likely suspect are NOT open to interpretation. If you reread the first two posts you'll learn what those facts are and you'll be able to follow the chain of logical inference that points from them directly to John Ramsey. When I discuss the note, therefore, what I am doing is not claiming that the note is another piece of evidence telling us that John is guilty, but that the contents of the note are consistent with it having been written by John, as part of his plan to stage a kidnapping. And my interpretation of that note is, imo at least, the ONLY logical explanation for its contents that I've ever seen. Whoever wrote it clearly had a plan, and my interpretation reveals a plan that does in fact make sense. I've never seen any other that makes any sense at all.

The three reasons you give for the body being hidden don't seem very convincing to me. I've never heard of a murderer hiding body out of shame or guilt. And hiding a body is not the same as burying it. Also there is no reason to buy time by hiding the body, because once the note has been reported to the police they are going to be looking for the guilty party regardless of whether it's kidnapping or murder.

Finally, as far as the doors were concerned, John reported to the police that all the doors were locked. A policeman checked and also determined that all were locked. And while it's true that the various friends contaminated any evidence that might have existed on the first floor, none of them went into the basement, with the exception of Fleet White, so any evidence that had been present in the basement would not have been hopelessly contaminated at all.

Hm I think you overlooked one critical thing as you worked on this case: You can't assume that the killer made completely logical, perfect choices. What's logical in the killer's mind might seem reckless or unnecessary or foolish to someone else.

When you say this *must* mean this or that *must* mean that, you're basing that on what you or others would have done in the situation.

For example, if you pointed to any element of the case, any action the killer performed, I could come up with multiple theories as to why it was done the way it was, all of which could possibly make sense in the mind of the killer.

Anyway, the reason I don't think it's too far fetched to imagine an intruder committed the crime is: the things the killer must have known (as demonstrated by his actions) were all things that could have been learned anecdotally. I think the killer knew a member of the Ramsey family and had probably been in their house once or twice before the night of the murder. He didn't have to know all that many things to pull this off.

It's good bouncing our ideas off each other. Hopefully I'll hear back from you soon.

"What's logical in the killer's mind might seem reckless or unnecessary or foolish to someone else.

When you say this *must* mean this or that *must* mean that, you're basing that on what you or others would have done in the situation."

I'm not trying to read anyone's mind or determine whether or not he was acting logically. I consider the facts and the logic of the case, NOT the thinking of the perpetrator. Profilers do the sort of thing you say I've done, but my methods are very different.

The fact that the note was written on a notepad found in the house, tells us this could not have been a preplanned kidnapping. The fact that the note was so long and also so carefully and consistently thought out and also so carefully penned (note the consistent spacing between words and careful adherence to the margin) tells us it could not have been some last minute decision on the part of someone who broke into the house with some other plan in mind. And the fact that the note was clearly not a forgery tells us that the intention of the "intruder" could not have been to frame John and/or Patsy.

Sorry, but that just about exhausts the possibilities as far as I can tell. But maybe you can think of an intruder scenario that fits.

Of course a defense lawyer will always argue, even in the most open and shut case, that we can't know everything and will try to make a case for reasonable doubt based on exactly the sort of objections you've just raised. But there is a huge difference between reasonable doubt and any old doubt. There will always be some doubt in just about any case, but the doubt has to be "reasonable," OK? Not just the possibility that the "real criminal" had some oddball motive and modus operandum that no one's ever thought of.

I don't think the killer ever planned on removing JB from the house. Nor was money his real motive. His "oddball" motive was simple; sex / sexual control of a child, that sick fuck. He became obsessed with JB and eventually figured out a way to act on it. That (unfortunately) happens all the time in this world. I don't think that's a stretch for a motive.

The killer proves his plan to us with his actions; At some point, whether before or after JB died, the killer could have easily left the house with her body, and ransomed it. But he didn't. He knew before he went in that this would end with her dead.

I believe he got into the house hours ahead of time, while the Ramseys are at the party, and that's why he had enough time to comfortably write such a long note. Plus, he probably wrote that note 10 times or more, at his own residence, practicing what he'd say, not to mention all the practice he'd do just in his own mind, thinking about which words to use.

He takes the time to write this long, eccentric, unnecessary note because to him it's worth it; it is all part of him living out the fantasy he's been obsessing over for weeks / months.

Regardless, the fact that the Boulder DA has made it clear that they have a DNA sample they so strongly believe is the real killer's, almost completely closes the door on the idea that they'd ever arrest John at this point. I'm surprised they didn't indict Patsy and / or John back in the late 90's, but they didn't, and if it didn't happen then, I really don't think it's going to happen now.

"He takes the time to write this long, eccentric, unnecessary note because to him it's worth it; it is all part of him living out the fantasy he's been obsessing over for weeks / months."

As I said: reasonable doubt is not the same as any old doubt at all. An intruder who enters a house with the intention of raping a child, and then sits down to write a 2 1/2 page long ransom note does not strike me as a reasonable explanation for what happened. I doubt it would be seen as reasonable doubt by a jury either. Looks to me more like a desperate last-ditch defense effort, a Hail Mary pass.

We also need to understand why he'd want to hide the body in that little basement room. Or why he felt the need to change her panties. Or how he even knew where to find that oversized pair of panties. Or how a note intended as a taunt winds up becoming a ransom note, complete with very specific instructions as to how the ransom amount is to be distributed and when to expect a phone call.

It also doesn't explain John's story about breaking through the basement window months earlier, which is clearly a lie intended to misdirect from the obvious staging on the night of the crime.

As far as the DNA is concerned, as I've already said, an intruder not wearing gloves would have left his prints and DNA all over the place. And an intruder wearing gloves would not have left any prints or DNA anywhere, at least not any "touch" DNA.

As far as prosecution is concerned: regardless of the remote possibility of some off the wall intruder with some unfathomable set of motives and methods, it seems clear that there is more than enough probable cause to indict John Ramsey for the murder of his daughter. His lawyers will be free to theorize about the possibility of such an unlikely "intruder" and if he's lucky the jury would buy it. But first he would need to explain why he lied about breaking that window in all innocence, because as I see it, that's the smoking gun in this case.

Maybe the killer writes the note the way he does not only as a misdirection, but also as a taunt. To me it reads like a creative writing essay gone berserk, written by someone who has seen too many movies and has fantasized about this for a long time. When the killer put in the $118,000 figure, I think he was saying "I'm so close to you that I know your bonus, but you don't know who I am. Take that."

If John wrote the note, I don't think he would make it so long, giving himself the chance to mess up and give himself away with a clue somehow.

I think John wrote it in such a way as to suggest it was a taunt, yes. There are many things in the note that read as taunts. And the $118,000 figure suggests exactly the sort of person you have in mind, exactly. But the fact that the note contains these elements does not tell us who wrote it, or even the sort of person who wrote it, because it's obviously a misdirection. How do I know it's staged rather than real? Read my last response to your last comment, above. The intruder you want to see would have prepared his taunts ahead of time, not decided at the last minute to write them down while in the house.

You don't think John would have written such a long note, but in fact he was the only one who would have felt comfortable enough in that house to take the time to write it. An intruder would have brought a prepared note or else would have penned a very short one, and then got out of there.

Not unless he was planning to part with that million or ten million, because if all had gone according to the plan I see in that note, he'd have claimed he paid the ransom but never got his daughter back. Which meant he'd have had to destroy it.

On the other hand, an amount roughly equal to his $118,000 bonus would be something he could afford to part with. So why not make it the exact amount, which would be consistent with the construction of some disaffected employee or jealous friend with access to his personal files.

I read your "Mr. Cruel" theory some time ago. It strikes me as preposterous, especially since there is no evidence this person, whose known crimes are limited to Australia, was ever present in Boulder, not to mention Colorado, or even the USA. Not a shred of actual evidence links him to this crime.

Has anyone ever considered this? Patsy Ramsey held an open house for the community 2 days before Christmas where 1,500 - 2,000 people did a walk through. It was 2-3 days before this that there was an article in the local paper about John Ramsey's business having a 1 $billion per year fiscal year. It is entirely possible and reasonable to consider that someone ducked behind a wall or door and hid in the basement. This house was huge; 4 stories with the basement, with the parent's bedroom on the upper floor. This scenario, whether true or not, would offer an explanation to just about every question and inconsistency.

New and Improved!

Currently available from the Kindle Store

Search This Blog

Things to Come

Things to Come

I just learned the other day of a new book on a case once labeled, "the crime of the century," but now almost completely forgotten. The title: Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? The author: James Kolar, a lead investigator during the reign of DA Mary Lacy, who famously exonerated John and Patsy Ramsey on the basis of a few miniscule fragments of so-called "intruder DNA." Thankfully, Kolar is not among those convinced by that very dubious "evidence." On the contrary, according to an excellent review,New Clues in JonBenet Ramsey Murder, recently published in the Daily Beast, Kolar's book presents strong evidence against the intruder theory -- implying, of course, that the murder was an inside job. I agree.

The publication of this new book, which I promptly ordered as soon as I found out about it, has prompted me, in spite of many misgivings, to once again plunge into the fray of this case, which for too many years, back in the late 90's and early 00's, as a regular poster on several Internet forums, occupied far too much of my attention and proved an endless source of frustration and annoyance, not only to me, but most of my fellow iSleuths. My problem was that I had solved it.